The court ironically was hearing the petition by a hotelier, Basant Hotels Private Ltd, that it had already attained due permissions under the 2018 policy, and that the provisions of the Hill Policy 2024 should not be applied to it.
While slamming the Rajasthan government over the extent of the construction in the Aravalli Hills surrounding Udaipur, the Rajasthan High Court has said that its 2018 Hill Policy seemed to be authored by “certain private agencies”.
Expressing alarm over the hills being pushed to “the verge of extinction”, the High Court sought names of authors of the state’s Hill Policy of 2018 and 2024, as well as the names and designations of the top officers who had granted permissions for construction and commercial activities.
The court ironically was hearing the petition by a hotelier, Basant Hotels Private Ltd, that it had already attained due permissions under the 2018 policy, and that the provisions of the Hill Policy 2024 should not be applied to it.
A Bench of Justice Sameer Jain said last week — the order was uploaded Monday — that the court had perused the report prepared by the court-appointed court commissioners in the case, and “it is glaringly evident that the hills and mountains have been brutally cut and constructed upon until they are on the verge of extinction, effectively being replaced by hotels”.
Justice Jain added that it had come to the court’s knowledge that “the author and creator of the bye-laws vis-a-vis the Hill Policy 2018 were certain private external agencies”. “Shockingly, no advice or consultation was ever sought from the relevant statutory agencies and departments concerning climate, wildlife, pollution, and environment, either through the Union of India or the respective state departments,” he added.
The court also pointed out that an earlier PIL, by the Jheel Sanrakshan Samiti, had been closed based “entirely upon State undertakings and obligations that they would implement the Public Trust Doctrine”. “It is shocking to the conscience of the court that the State has instead authored a policy completely devoid of application of mind, expertise, or research and development, instigated merely by the support services of a private agency, and completely bypassing the Ministry of Environment, Climate, Wildlife, and Pollution Control Boards.”
Appearing for the Centre, Additional Solicitor General Bharat Vyas also said that “the Union of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, and pollution control authorities were never consulted or made stakeholders in this policy”.
Story continues below this ad
The High Court sought “complete details of all construction / commercial permissions granted in the nearby vicinity of the petitioner’s property”, along with the officers who granted the permissions as well as “the name of the author of the impugned Hill Policy of 2018 and author of the Hill Policy of 2024, along with all related primary documents”. The hill policy was being drafted by entities lacking any expertise, the court said, adding that while Articles 14 and 19 provide for equality and the freedom to carry out business and trade, these rights are “subject to reasonable restrictions”.
The court demanded “the entire record pertaining to the creation of the said Hill policies, their rationale, and the private agency’s report”. “Under the guise of the sustainable development theory and arbitrarily crafted policies, hundreds of hotels, resorts, and commercial properties have mushroomed near sanctuaries, sensitive ecosystems, lakes, and upon the hills,” it said.
Lamenting the state of Udaipur, Justice Jain said “the city… renowned for its lakes, mountains/hills (Magris), and wildlife sanctuaries, has been reduced to a pitiable state”.
In its petition, Bastant Hotels Private Ltd said it had been in the business since 2007, had purchased land for construction in the Udaipur hills, and applied and received permissions for construction, conversion of land, building plan, and an adjoining road, etc.
Story continues below this ad
The hotelier said they had taken a loan of Rs 20 crore and invested about Rs 12 crore in the said project, before the 2018 Hill Policy came into play under the previous Congress government. Then a PIL was filed and authorities were directed to seize their property and demolish it, Basant Hotels said. Its lawyer M S Singhvi argued that the provisions of the Hill Policy 2024 could not be applied to it as it had already attained due permissions under the policy of 2018.
During an earlier hearing, the court had noted that there were about 43 properties in the vicinity of Basant Hotels’ property, including hotels, resorts and residential houses, “and additionally certain mining activities are also prevailing”. The court had then appointed Advocate Kamini Joshi and retired IAS officer Rajendra Bhanawat as court commissioners.
The High Court is also hearing a PIL filed by the Jheel Sanrakshan Samiti, an organisation based in Udaipur, seeking quashing of the Hill Policy 24, constitution of a state-level Hill Conservation Authority, and reframing of regulations “strictly in accordance with judicial directions, expert opinion and environmental principles”, and that no more expansion, extension, additional construction or increase in built-up area of existing structures in hill areas be permitted.
The court has clubbed both the cases, along with a third, and the same will now be placed before a Division Bench.
Story continues below this ad
Anil Mehta, Joint Secretary of the Jheel Sanrakshan Samiti, said “there was a significant policy and ecological anomaly” in the Hill Policy as there are bye-laws for hills within notified urban areas which do not apply to hills in rural areas. “A harmonised, landscape-based regulatory framework applicable to both urban and rural areas is essential to protect the integrity of the Aravalli ecosystem,” he said.
