Football And Hockey Fields Which Presently Have Natural Grass Shall Not Be Destroyed Or Altered To Artificial Turf: Delhi HC

While stating that creeping concretization, through seemingly innocuous projects, needs to be examined from the prism of ecological balance, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Najmi Wazri observed that “Land-owning agencies hold land in trust for future generations, they need to exercise such care and caution. There can hardly be a case for this city being robbed of its green spaces in a few years only because in one project or the other, there is a resultant concretization of the earth”.

Senior Advocate M.L. Lahoty appeared for the Petitioner, whereas Senior Advocate Ajay Verma appeared for the Respondent.

In a brief background of the case, the Siri Fort Sports Complex (SFSC) located in South Delhi, is shown as a “public stadium/ public sports facilities” and DDA manages the said Sports Centre. The DDA had floated a tender for the conversion of football and hockey grounds into synthetic surface/artificial turf at SFSC which presently has manicured natural grass. The petitioner being a permanent member of the SFSC and resident of the adjacent Asiad Village, objected to the laying of artificial turf primarily on grounds of environmental degrading, wastage of good quality water, robbing of the Sports Centre of natural earth and its concomitant benefits, the concretization of earth and degradation of soil etc. The Petitioner, therefore, approached the High Court contending that since DDA holds lands in public trust, therefore, it cannot take up any action which disturbs the ecological balance of the area.

After considering the submission, the Bench stated that the extensive negatives of artificial turf for the hot micro climate of the area and the deleterious impact it will have on the surroundings, cannot be overlooked.

“During 2009-2010, DDA had sought to construct new buildings and otherwise add concrete in the earth in and around SFSC. Many hundreds of old trees, which were more than 100 years old, were cut down. In this regard, the court cannot ignore reports of experts, including reports of the renowned architect and city planner- Mr Charles Correa, who was appointed by the Supreme Court to assist in T.N. Godavarman Thirulkpad vs UOI, (1997) 2 SCC 267, as well the report and opinion of Mr Harish Salve, the learned Senior Advocate appointed as Amicus Curiae by the Supreme Court”, added the Bench.

While observing that DDA being a public agency should have bought this material to the court’s notice, the High Court said that one cannot have a key-hole view of the environment or a blinkered perspective of it, since the environment is much larger than a simple football or hockey field.

Highlighting that in a city like Delhi, the ecology of small pockets of green areas, serving as lungs for the city, especially amidst densely populated residential, commercial, and industrial localities is crucial and fragile, the High Court explained that greater caution must be exercised, lest an inexorable harm is set in motion which may continue to blight the city for generations to come.

The Bench went on to elaborate that all such entities like DDA must ensure that the natural environment is maintained, safeguarded, and improved, and the laying of artificial turf will be irreversible damage to not only the football and hockey fields but to the contiguous green area and is likely to affect the people using the immediately adjacent walking path.

Lastly, the Bench observed that while land may belong to individuals and land-owning agencies, the environment belongs to all humans, and indeed to all living creatures.

“Each living being needs to be protected from damaged ecology. There is a shared duty and responsibility on everyone to protect the environment from harm”, added the Bench.

Therefore, the High Court directed the DDA to maintain the status quo passed in this petition on Feb 04, 2020.