Holding

The Visva‑Bharati Act, its objects, and the Pollution Control Board’s directions impose binding obligations on the State and development authority to ensure that any construction preserves the university’s unique cultural and ecological environment.

Summary

The petitioners, residents of Santiniketan, filed a public interest litigation seeking to restrain the construction of residential and commercial complexes, especially on the ecologically sensitive 'Khoai' area, alleging violation of the Visva‑Bharati Act, 1951 and directions of the West Bengal Pollution Control Board. The Calcutta High Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the university did not own the entire 3000‑hectare area and that no public interest justified restraining development. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the purpose, preamble and objects of the Visva‑Bharati Act, held that its provisions, together with the Pollution Control Board’s directions, bind the State and the Sriniketan‑Shantiniketan Development Authority. The Court ruled that any future construction must conform to the statutory scheme, preserve the university’s unique cultural and ecological ambience, and respect environmental directives, but it did not order a complete halt to the ongoing project. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the appeal, directing the development authority to keep the statutory and environmental provisions in mind for all future planning, and awarded no costs.

Issues considered

The extent to which the Visva‑Bharati Act, 1951 restricts construction activities within the area specified in its Second Schedule.
Whether the directions of the West Bengal Pollution Control Board are binding on the State and the development authority under the Act.
Whether the High Court erred in holding that no public interest existed to restrain the proposed constructions.
Whether the State has a duty, under the Act and constitutional provisions, to preserve the cultural, historical and ecological ambience of Visva‑Bharati.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 12, s. Article 21, s. Article 51A(g), s. Part IV (Directive Principles)
West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953s. 4

Subjects

Visva‑Bharati Actenvironmental protectionpublic interest litigationpollution controlheritage preservationland use planningecological balanceconstitutional lawArticle 21Article 51A(g)West Bengal Town and Country Act

Judgment

A SUSHANTA TAGORE AND ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

MARCH 3, 2005

B [N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.]

Visva Bhardti Act, 1951-Sections 5, 6 and 7 and II Schedule-
Construction ofresidential and Commercial Complexes within Shantiniketan-
C Public Interest Litigation challenging the construction-Only a portion of the "
Scheduled area acquired by University-Direction of Pollution Control Board
for preservation of ambience of University for cultural, historical,
archaeological, environmental and ecologicalpurposes-~High Court dismissed
the PIL on the grounds that University was not the owner of entire 3000 acres
of land and that allowing Shantiniketan in its original form would be
D impractical-On appeal, held : Jn view of the statutory scheme, the tradition
and special features of the University should be preserved-Directions issued
by Pollution Control Board are binding on the State as well as the Sriniketan
Shantiniketan Development Authority-Though town development is job of
town planning Authority, but such town planning should be done not only
E having regard to provisions of one statute, but also the provisions of other
statutes especially those for protection and preservation of ecology and
environment-Though the construction not stopped but the Authority cautioned
to keep in mind in future the statutory provisions and the observations of
Court in this judgment-West Bengal Town and Country (Planning and
Development) Act, 1979-Constitution ofIndia, 1950-Articles 21and5/A(g)
F and Part JV.
Visva Bharati Act, 1951 was enacted with a view to preserve and
protect the uniqueness, tradition and special features of Visva Bharati
University. The powers of the University conferred under the Act was
G restricted to area specified in Second Schedule appended to the Act which
was Shantiniketan admeasuring 3000 hectares. Out of the 3000 hectares,
1761 acres were acquired for the University. Pollution Control Board had
issued certain directions for. preservation and conservation for cultural,
historical, archaeological, environmental and ecological purposes.
Appellants-residents of Shantiniketan filed Public Interest Litigation
H 502
SUSHANTA TAGORE v. U.0.1. 503

aggrieved by indiscriminate constructions and in particular proposed A
constructions which were likely to come up in the area known as 'khoai'
which were responsible for defacement of ambience and environment of
Visva Bharati. High Court dismissed the public interest litigation holding
that University being not the owner of the entire 3000 acres of land no
relief could be granted; that though the construction would change the
topography of Shantiniketan in the canal front, there was no public interest B
calling for restraint of such a change; that the building activity in
accordance with the spirit and ideas of Rabindranath Tagore was not
practical.

-- In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the issue in the Writ
Petition must be considered having regard to the purposes for which the
Act was enacted, its preamble and statement of its Object and Reasons.
C

Respondent-Builder contended that the State having exclusive
legislative competence regarding town planning, the Parliamentary Act
cannot interdict in the areas covered by the State; that by reason of such D
constructional activities neither the academic programme nor the
academic territory of the University were affected; that Writ Petition was
rightly dismissed, University itself not having claimed any ownership in
respect of the land beyond what has. been acquired for its purpose; that
most of the appellants being residents within the area of 3000 acres cannot
challenge the constructional activities within the Scheduled area. E
Disposing of the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. Visva Bharati Act, 1951 was enacted with the consent of
the State of West Bengal. The State, having regard to the purport and
object of the Act, has, thus, a duty to see that the environmental ambience F
which would not be in consonance with the ideals of Visva Bharati, should
not be undertaken. Visva Bharati is sui generis. It is an institution of
national importance. It is a unitary teaching and residential University.
The jurisdiction of the University is not only confined to the area specified
in the Second Schedule appended to the Act, as regard its academic G
activities but in view of Section 6(32) of the Act it may establish campuses
within the territorial limits of the University as specified therein. The
provisions of the Act and in particular Sections SA, 6, 7 and the Second
Schedule thereof must be conjointly read with the preamble and the
Statement of Objects and Reasons thereof. If by reason of any activity,
.the tradition and special features of Visva Bharati are not preserved, the H
504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 2 S.C.R.

A very purpose of the enactment would be defeated. 1515-D-F; ·516-81
' ' '
2. Even now the Visva Bharati organizes classes in open air and also . '.
on Khoai lands, particularly, drawing and painting classes. Though
changes are taking place everywhere, in India but Sirn~iniketan should
maintain the tradition and special features of the Visva Bharati in terms
B of the statutory scheme. (516-CI

3. High Court was not correct in holding that in the event the
building activity in the territorial area comprising Santiniketan as specified
in the Act was to take place in accordance with the spirit and ideas of
C Rabindranath Tagore, such activity cannot be monitored in the practical
world and, therefore, would constitute illegal and impractical way of
thought and furthermore although the House Complex Project of the
Respondent-builder would change the topogritphy of Santiniketan in the
canal front, there·was no public interest calling for restraint of such a
change. (516-E-F)
D
. 4. The Pollution Control Board which has statutory duties to perform
had issued certain directions for preservation and conservation for
cultural, historical, archaeological, environmental and ecological purposes.
· Such directions are binding on the State as well as Sriniketan
Shantiniketan Development Authority. If any construction is carried on
E 'the 'Khoai', the same indisputably will destroy its unique natural and
cultural heritage, as opined by the Board, and, thus, all constructional
activities must abide by the same. (516-G-Hl

5. It may be true that the development of a town is the job of the
town planning authority but the same should conform to the requirements
F of law. Development must be sustainable in nature. A land use plan should
be prepared not only having regard fo the provisions contained in West
Bengal Town and Country (Planning and Development) Act, 1979 and the
Rules and Regulations framed thereunder but also the provisions of other
statues enacted therefor and in particular those for protection and
G preservation of ecology and environment. (517-El
· 6. For carrying out further constructional activities, it may not be
necessary for a builder to apply to the University for seeking its permission
but the local-self government whic~ is responsible therefor must take into
I
consideration the salutary principles· laid down in the pollution control
1

H laws as well as the Act. [5i8-C-DJ 1

r
SUSHANTA TAGORE v. U.0.1. [SINHA,] 505
7. It is imperative that the ecological balance be maintained keeping A
in view the provisions of both directive principles of State Policy read with
Article 21 of the Constitution. Furthermore, a State within the meaning
of Article 12 of the Constitution of India must give effect to the provisions
of Article 51A(g) of the Constitution. 1517-Af

8. It may be true that the Appellants herein have their own houses B
within the 3000 acres of land but they have been residing there for a long
time. What is being obje£ted to by them is construction of huge residential
and commercial complexes which even according to the High Court would
not only change the topography but also would change the place almost
beyond recognition of the poet. (517-C-DI C
9. Only because some advantages would ensue to the people in
general by reason of the proposed development, the same would not mean
that the ecology of the place would be sacrificed. Only because some
encroachments have been made and unauthorized buildings have been
constructed, the same by itself cannot be a good ground for allowing other D
constructional activities to come up which would be in violation of the
provisions of the Act. Illegal encroachments, if any, may be removed in
accordance with law. It is trite law that there is no equality in illegality.
(518-A-B)

IO. The Authority is directed that in future it must keep in mind the E
statutory provisions as also the observations made in this judgment.
(519-BJ

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 151 I of2005.

From the Judgment and Order dated 20.8.2004 of the Calcutta High F
Court in W.P. No. l 9443/2003(W) in C.A. No. 4327 of 2004.

R. Mohan, Additional Solicitor General, Soli J. Sorabjee, G.L. Sanghi,
T.S. Doabia, Rana Mukherjee, Prateek Jalan, Siddharth Gautam,
Ardhendumauli K. Prasad, Goodwill Indeevar, Vivek Narayan S., Mrs. Asha
Naryar Basu, Pranab Kumar Mullick, H.K. Puri, U.ijwal Banerjee, S.K. Puri, G
Shiv Gupta, Mrs. Priya Puri, V.M. Chauhan, Avijit Bhattacharjee, Atanu
Saikia, V.G. Pragasam, Gautam Banerjee, P.O. Sharma, T.A. Khan and D.S.
Mahra for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] 2 S.C.R.

A S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted .
. .. ..
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS:
I .,. '· 4" • ' 1 ~I • I

The Appellants herein are residents of Santiniketan in the District of
Birbhum of the State of West Bengal.' ·· . . '·
B . ; ·r1 :·
Visva Bharati University (University) was conceived and established
by Rabindranath Tagore, the great poet, story writer, 'song ·~omposer,
playwright, essayist, painter, .educationist and Nobel .La~rea~e,, ~n 23rd
December, 1921.
...
C An environment ambiance had all along been maintained in cbnsonance
with the ideals of Tagore and for which the same was established.
• ' r_ • • ,: • '

.,
THE ACT:

The Parliament with a view to preserve and protect the uniqueness,
D tradition and special features of the said University, in exercise of its legislative
power conferred on it under Entry 63, List I of the Seventh Schedule of the
Constitution of India enacted The Visva-Bharati Act, I 951 (the Act) declaring
it to be an institution of national importance. The University was constituted
as an unitary, teaching and residential University with a view to preserve the
E tradition and special features of the institution, as would appear from its
Statements of Objects and Reasons which are as under:' ·
•I. • I

"The Visva-Bharati founded by Dr. Rabindranath Tagore at
Santiniketan in 1921 is a unique institution, and has since its inception
served as a centre for the study' of, and resekrch in; the ·different
cultures of the East on the basis of their underlying unity, and has
F
sought to approach the West from the stand-point of such a unity of
the life and thought of Asia. The Institution 'has' acquired ·a world-
wide recognition and has att;acted scholars and pupi!s fro~ many
countries all over the world.

2. The University Education Commission commended the special and
.G
very valuable work done by this institution, particularly its "effort to
discover, preserve and transmit the vast elements' of old Indian culture,
and the work with the surrounding villages" ·and rec'o'minended that
the Visva-Bharati should be given a provisional Charter as a University
with suitable capital and recurring grants. The recommendations of
H the University Education commission were approved by the Central
SUSHANTA TAGORE v. U.0.1. [SINHA. J.] 507

Adversory Board of Education at its meeting in April, 1950, and the A
Government of West Bengal agree to the establishment of a unitary,
teaching and residential University at Santiniketan by an Act of
Parliament.

3. There is no provision in the Constitution of India for the grant of
a Charter (as distinct from an Act) as recommended by the University B
Education Commission, but the Constitution makes the Union
Government responsible for institutions declared by law to be of
national importance (vide item 63 of List I of the Seventh Schedule
to the Constitution).

...... 4. It is, therefore, proposed to make such a declaration and have the C
Visva-Bharati constituted as a Central University. The constitution
that is proposed to be given to Visva-Bharati is in conformity with
the recommendations made by the University Education Commission
with such modifications as are considered necessary to preserve the
tradition and special features of the institution." D
Section 4 of the Act provides for incorporation of the University. The
object of the University in terms of Section SA thereof was to disseminate
and advance knowledge and understanding by providing instructional,
extension and research facilities and by the example and influence of its
corporate life, and in organizing its activities, have due regard to the objects E
specified therein for which the Visva-Bharati at Santiniketan was founded by
Rabin&anath Tagore, as expressed in his own words including "to see to
realize in a common fellowship of study the meeting of the East and tlie
West, and thus ultimately to strengthen the fundamental conditions of world
peace through the establishment of free communication of ideas between the
two hemispheres". F
Section SB provides for the principles to be followed in organizing the
activities of the University, in respect whereof as also for implementation of
its academic programmes shall have due regard to the pattern of education
envisaged by Rabindranath Tagore in his writings.
G
Section 6 provides for the power of the University some of which are:

"(6) to establish and maintain such Bhavanas, Schools of Studies and
Research, Chatravasas, Gymnasia and such other institutions as are
deemed· necessary, from time to time, for the development of healthy
H
508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 2 S.C.R.

A corporate life in the University and to abolish any such Bhavana
School, Chatravasa, Gymnasium or other institution; ·' .

(7) to establish; at any place in India, campuses, special centres,
specialized laboratories or other units for research and instruction as
are, in the opinion of the University, necessary for the furth~r~nce of
B its objects;

(9) to undertake the promotio'n of adult education, rural reconstruction,
co-operative organizations, social welfare, development Of cottage
industries and all other nation-building activities and works for the
benefit of the public;
c
(32) to establish campuses within,the territorial limits of the University
specified in the Second Schedule;" 1
' • '
1

By reason of Section 7 of the Act, the powers of the University conferred
by or under this· Act shall be restricted to the area specified in the Second
D Schedule.

The Second Schedule appended to the Act provides for an area·known
as Santiniketan admeasuring 3000 hectares bounded on the North by. the
Kopai River, on the west by a: line running from Ballavpur and Bonuri villages
to Bandgora, on the south by a line running from Bandgora via .Bolpur Oak
E Bungalow to the bridge over the Eastm Railway cutting, and, on the east by
the Eastern Railway line. ,,

PUBLIC INTEREST UTIGA TION: _;

The Appellants herein who are residents of Santiniketan' fllela public
.F interest litigation before the Calcutta High Court aggrieved by the continu-ii1g
process of defacement of the ambiance and environment which was destroying
the very ideals and purpose for .which Visva_ Bharati was conceiyed and
founded by Tagore. Such encroachment upon the ambiance is said to. have
been committed by reason of indiscriminate constructions and in particular
G construction of residential - cum - commercial complexes by develope~s.and
promoters in utter disregard of, inter alia, environmental and pollution control
laws and requirements which had endangered the very purpose, tradition and
objective with which Visva Bharati was established and.which was thereafter
' sought to be preserved by the Act. The Appellants herein who are in particular
;iggrieved by proposed constructions which are likely to"comc up in the area
H known as Khoai being land created in the natural process through running
SUSHANTA TAGORE v. U.0.1. [SINHA . .I.] 509

rain water for millennia which is a rare natural phenomenon and which, if A
destroyed, cannot be restored even with the help of science and, thus, requires
preservation, approached the High Court in the said proceedings.

RESPONDENTS' CONTENTIONS :

The Legislature of the State of West Bengal enacted the West Bengal B
Town and Country (Planning and Development) Act, 1979 to provide for the
planned development of rural and urban areas in West Bengal and for matters
connected therewith or incidental thereto.

The State of West Bengal claims to be owner of the lands situated at
Santiniketan being vested in it under Section 4 of the West Bengal Estate C
Acquisition Act, 1953. It is, however, not disputed that 1761 acres of land,
according to Sriniketan Santiniketan Development Authority (SSDA) (1127
acres, according to the University), were acquired for the University within
the aforementioned 3000 hectares of land.

The Respondents contend that the Universities which are either declared D
to be of National Importance or have been set up by the State only contain
a territorial jurisdiction for the sole purpose of academic activities and Section
7 of the Act must be interpreted accordingly. Academic territorial jurisdiction,
according to Respondents, would not confer any title thereupon in the
University. The area which was in contemplation of Rabindranath Tagore is E
said to be known as the "Deer Park Area" as in 1870, i.e., around the time
when the said composition was made there was only one barrage or bandh,
in Santiniketan, which is still in existence and is known as "Lal Bandh". A
decision to develop the said area was taken whereupon a Land Use Map was
published and objections thereto were invited. Upon consideration of such
objections, some modifications in Land Use Development and Control Plan F
were made out and the same received the approval of the State of West
Bengal in terms of Section 37 of the 1979 Act. The Government of West
Bengal allegedly sanctioned long term settlement of the government land as
mentioned in the Government Order dated 25th April, 2003 in favour of
SSDA. Pursuant thereto or in furtherance thereof SSDA has entered into an G
agreement with Bengal Ambuja Cement Housing Development Ltd. which is
a joint sector company of West Bengal Housing Board, a body corporate
formed under the West Bengal Housing Board Act, 1972 and Gujarat Ambuja
Cements Ltd. having equal participation of 49.99%. It is contended that the
proposed constructions are being made at a minimum distance of 250 meters
of Visva Bharati area and in terms of the land use and development plan no H
510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 2 S.C.R.

A development is permitted within 50 metres outside the boundary of Visva
Bharati University. In its counter affidavit, SSDA contended :

"(Ac) The proposed development of the said plot will be advantageous
in all respects. Had the project not being undertaken the said plot
would be occupied by encroachers and unautorised buildings
B constructed by them. Areas nearby have been encroached upon by
private persons and buildings have been constructed. Under the pfanned
development much, lesser area than permissible under SSDA will be
covered and accordingly there will be considerable open space in
addition to 3 acres of land for greenery. No building will exceed

c permissible height as mentioned hereinbefore. There will be primary
school, which in very much needed in the.area. Unauthorised structures
on the plot have been mostly removed but still some of them. exist.
Revenue to be received by SSDA out of this project is to be utilized
for carrying out various other projects for public purpose. SSDA has
undertaken various works of public benefit. Several roads have been
D developed project for supply of potable water has been undertaken
and has been substantially implemented. Further implerylentation in
other area is also under process. Genuine residents of Santiniketan
will be benefited out of the said \\'.orks undertaken by SSDA."

HIGH C0URT:
E
A Division Bench of the High Court dismisst:!d the said public interest
litigation holding that the University being not the owner of the entire 3000
hectares of land no relief can be granted. While arriving at the said finding,
it was opined :

F (i) " ...... .If it is not Vishwabharati's special dominion ·land for setting
up campuses as and when it so will, then the Sta~e has authority
to deal with the same in accordance with law, because there.are
no other objectors. It-is not illegal to set-up reasonably peaceful
activities or abodes of citizens, near or even very near,
Universities."
G
(ii) "That the continued increase of population in Santiniketan and
the continued increase of building activity there, will slowly
·change the place almost beyond the recognition of the poet, ifhe
were to be alive even today,. cannot be disputed."

H (iii) "The Act contains no indication that by reason of any spirit of
SUSHANTA TAGORE v. U.0.1. [SINHA, .I.] 511
the Act, or the spirit of the poet, Santiniketan is to be made into A
such an exclusive spot forever."

(iv) "Moreover, assuming that the building activity is to take place
only in accordance with the spirit and ideas of the poet, Rabindra
Nath Tagore, how, we ask ourselves, is such activity to be
monitored in the practical World? Will every builder make an B
application first to the Vishwabharati University, seeking
permission? Will every such case of permission ultimately travel
to the Public Interest Litigation Court, for us to decide ultimately
whether the building activity would be in keeping with the old

- ideas of the old Santiniketan? In our opinion, this is an
unreasonable and, therefore, an illegal and an impractical way of
thought. The building activity can be mentioned and controlled
c
only if some law says that it is to be so monitored and controlled,
and also lays down specific ways in which such restrictions are
to be imposed by specified or named authorities. None of the
laws shown to us prevents the Bengal Ambuja Project." D
(v) "We are of the opinion that the Bengal Ambuja Housing Complex
will, to that extent, change the topography of Santiniketan in the

- canal front but that there is no public interest which calls for
restraint of such a change. In our opinion, the University activities
can go on with substantially the same amount of vigour and
benefit to mankind whether we are aware that we are going a
E
long way in saying this, but still we do state this to do so, the
Santiniketan outside the University becomes a residential town
or even an Industrial town, provided the growth is planned,
systematic and in accordance with the laws relating to freedom
from population." F
SUBMISSIONS:

Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
Appellants, in assailing the judgment of the High Court, would submit that
the issues raised in the writ petition must be considered having regard to the G
purposes for which the Act was enacted and having regard to its Preamble
and the Statement of its Objects and Reasons. Activities going against the
tenor the said Act, Mr. Sorabjee would contend, should not be permitted.

The learned counsel submitted that the findings of the High Court to
the effect changes necessary to be brought about in the topography and the H
512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 2. S.C.R.

A same would slowly change the place almost beyond .the recognition.of the
poet, if he were to be alive even today as fallacious inasmuch postulate such
activities which the Act intends to prevent. Comparison of the said University
·with other universities, Mr. Sorabjee argued, is wholly misconceived. Mandate
of the Act, according to Mr. Sorabjee, provides for guidelines to maintain the
B ambiance of entire Santinike~an which will itself be in public interest. If by
reason of the activities, the character of the place sought to be preserved by
the Act is changed beyond recognition and topography of Santiniketan itself
is affected thereby, the Court should invoke the doctrine of 'implied
prohibition' for giving a true meaning of the Act. Our attention in this
connection has been drawn to a report of the West Bengal Pollution Control
C Board. It was urged that although the said report was in relation to the
construction activities carried out by Mis. Bengal Peerless Housing
~ .
Development Company but it would appear therefrom that the site of
-
development of housing of Mis. Bengal Ambuja Ltd. was also visited.

The learned counsel submitted that the Division Bench of the Calcutta
D High Court neither took into consideration the report of the West Bengal
Pollution Control Board in its proper perspective nor applied its mind. with
regard to preservation and protection of Khoai which was the basis for

-
maintaining the writ petition.

Mr. G.L. Sanghi, Jea~ed senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
E Respondent No: 10, took us through the counter-affidavit filed by SSDA and
submitted that having regard to the fact that the State has the exclusive
legislative competence as regard town planning, the Parliamentary Act cannot
interdict in the areas covered by the State Act.·

F The learned counsel would contend that by reason of such constructional
activities neither the academic programme of the University as contemplated
under Section SB of the Act nor the academic territory of the University has
contemplated under Section 7 thereof are affected. The University itself having
not claimed any ownership in respect of the land beyond what had been
acquired for its purpose, and, thus, the writ petition filed by the Appellant
G herein had rightly been dismissed. It was pointed out that there exist many
houses within the area of 3000 hectares of land and in fact the most of the
Appellants are residents thereof and, thus, it does no.t lie in their mouth to
contend that no constructional activities should be carried out within the area
contained in the Second Schedule of the Act.

H The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of West Bengal
SUSHANTA TAGORE v. U.0.1. [SINHA, J.] 513

and SSDA adopted the submissions of Mr. Sanghi. A
Mr. Gautam Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
University, however, left the matter at the hands of the court stating that the
activities of Respondent No. 10 are outside the area of the University.

Mr. T.S. Doabia, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the B
Union of India, however, would support the Appellants herein contending
that in the larger interests the provisions of the Act should be implemented
in letter and spirit and nothing. should be done so as to destroy the purport
and object for which the University was founded.

Mr. R. Mohan, learned ASG, appearing on behalf of the West Bengal C
Pollution Control Board submitted that his client stands by its report.

REPORT OF THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD:

From the report sent by the W.B. Pollution Control Board, it would
appear that it had issued a direction restricting the municipal corporations, D
etc. from sanctioning any building·plan of big housing complexes without
obtaining its environmental clearance: Having regard to the peculiar features
and the fact.that SSDA's working area includes maintenance and preservation
of cultural heritage and natural environment of Sriniketan-Santiniketan and
further in view of the increase in the price of the land ofKhoai and as people E
visiting Santiniketan enjoy Khoai by seeing in different climatic and scenic
conditions, it was stated:

"Increasing constructional activity in Sriniketan-Santiniketan area may
cause serious disruption in natural drainage system. It is therefore
necessary to examine the drainage pattern (both dry weather flow and F
storm water flow) in the area and document it as per field condition.
It is suggested that SSDA could take up the job examining the drainage
pattern and system and document them in a map (marked with
contour). The coming rainy season (July-September) could be ideal
for the field study. G
As Santiniketan is getting developed as tourist place, therefore, it is
essential to preserve the natural beauty and heritage which people
like to enjoy. It is true that planned housing is one of the component
of urbanization. There is a great demand of housing not only from the
local residents but also from people outside. Many want to keep a H
514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) 2 S.C.R.

A 2nd home for use during weekends, holidays and festivals .. Housing.
needs supporting infrastructures, also required to be constructed.
Further, it will require adequate water supply, sanitation and drainage,
solid waste management, etc.

Urbanization will have impact on ambient air quality unless problem
B' mitigation measures are taken properly. The rapid EIA report submitted
by BPHDCL though indicated that suspended particulate matters in1
ambient air at Sonar Taree area are below maximum pennissible
limit, but the same nearrPearson memorial Hospital was more than•
the permissible limit in December. Even on some days of December
c· the SPM was more than the pennissible limit at Sonar Taree area.
However, other parameters of· ambient air 'are well below the
pennissible limit."

It was opined:

· "SSDA should follow land use and development control plan already
prepared·by Urban Development (T&CP) Department. In addition,
SSDA must see to conservation· of the natural heritage of the place
as far as practicable. It is also true that when development of
Santiniketan~Sriniketan area is a necessity due to promotion of tourism
and urban pull, there must be certain changes in the land use pattern
E resulting in disappearance of khoyai landscape from certain· places.
Hence SSDA · must look into this aspect while planning for•
development of area keeping changes of Khoyai land formation
minimal." -
Among other things, the Report recommended ·that:
F
.(i) no more housing projects be undertaken until SSDA:s perspective
plan - 2025 including Visva Bharati's special requirements was
approved,

(ii) ensure minimal damage to the remaining Khoai so as to preserve
G its natural beauty, heritage and natural drainage system,

(iii) a Satellite Township be built at a suitable distance_ from the
Visva Bharati area.

ANALYSIS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT:
Visva Bharati is an institution of national importance. The purport and
SUSHANTA TAGORE v. U.0.1. [SINHA, J.] 515

object for which the Act was enacted is neither in doubt nor in dispute. The A
preamble of the Act as well as the Statement of Objects and Reasons are clear
and explicit.

As Shri A.C. Guha put it during the Parliamentary Debate on the Bill,
Visva Bharati is a "symbol of our culture". During the Parliamentary Debate,
Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad had said, "Nature has provided it with the B
canopy of the sky and the open places and they do not want to make any
additions to them in the form of brick and stone". Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
said, "And I entirely agree with Dr. Mookerjee when he laid stress on certain
factors that may be called external if you like, but, nevertheless, which must
have a very powerful influence in moulding the student there and creating a C
new environment, whether it is teaching in the mango grove or doing anything
like that. I entirely agree with him that we should not spend our money on
a large number of brick structures as we unfortunately still do in making our
buildings, whether educational buildings or other buildings, and have little
left to carry on the work in those buildings."
D
The Act was enacted with the consent of the State of West Bengal. The
State, having regard to the purport and object of the Act, has, thus, a duty to
see that the environmental ambiance which would not be in consonance with
the ideals of Visva Bharati should not be undertaken. Visva Bharati is sui
generis. It is an institution of national importance. It is a unitary teaching and E
residential University. The jurisdiction of the University is not only confined
to the area specified in the Second Schedule appended to the Act, as regard
its academic activities but in view of Section 6(32) of the Act it may establish
campuses within the territorial limits of the University as specified therein.

The provisions of the Act and in particular Sections SA, 6, 7 and the F
Second Schedule thereof must be conjointly read with the preamble and the
Statement of Objects and Reasons thereof.

DETERMINATION

The Division Bench of the High Court, as noticed hereinbefore, arrived G
at a finding that the continued increase of building activities will slowly
change the place almost beyond recognition of the poet and the activities of
Bengal Ambuja Housing Complex Ltd. will to some extent change the
topography of Santiniketan in the canal front. Despite holding so, the High
Court observed that such changes are necessary having regard to the continued H
516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . (2005] 2 S.C.R.

A increase in population of Santiniketan and, as the Act does not contain any
provision Santiniketan was required to be made an exclusive spot forever
and, furthermore, as allowing the Santiniketan in its original form would be
impractical, it can be permitted to become residential town or even industrial
town provided the growth is planned, systematic and in accordance with the
B laws relating to freedom from population. .
.....
If by reason of any activity, the tradition and special features of Visva
Bharati are not preserved, the vel)' purpose of the enactment would be defeated.
It has not been denied or disputed that even now the Visva Bharati organizes
classes in open air and also on Khoai lands, particularly, drawing and painting
C classes.

Indisputably, changes are taking place everywhere in India but
Santiniketan should maintain the tradition and special features of the Visva
Bharati in terms of the statutory scheme.

D The Appellants had brought on records that frequent and unscheduled ·
excursions and picnics in the area by the students of Kala Bhavana and Patha
Bhavana were the hall.marks of Tagore's unique educational innovation.

The Division Bench of the High Court, in our opinion, was not correct
in holding that in the event the building activity in the territorial area
E comprising Santiniketan as specified in the Act was to take place in accordance
with the spirit and ideas of Rabindranath Tagore, such activity cannot be
monitored in the practical world and, therefore, would constitute illegal and
impractical way of thought and furthermore although the House Complex
project of the Respondent No. IO would change the topographyofSantiniketan
F in the canal front, there was no public interest calling for restraint of such a
change.

The West Bengal Pollution Control Board is a statutory body. The
environmental impact assessment in terms of the provisions of the laws
governing ecology of the area is imperative. The Pollution Control Board
G which has statutory duties to perform had issued certain directions for
preservation and conservation for cultural, historical, archaeological,
environmental and ecological purposes. Such directions are binding on the
State as well as SSDA. If any construction is carried on the Khoai, the same
indisputably will destroy its unique natural and cultural heritage, as opined
H by the Board, and, thus, all constructional activities must abide by the same.
SUSIIANTA TAGORE v. U.O.L [SINHA . .I.] 517

It is imperative that the ecological balance be maintained keeping in A
view the provisions of both directive principles of State Policy read with
Article 21 of the Constitution. Furthermore, a State within the meaning of
Article 12 of the Constitution of India must give effect to the provisions of
Article 5 IA(g) of the Constitution which reads as under :

"51 A. Fundamental duties - It shall be the duty of every citizen of B
India -

*** *** ***
(g) to protect and improve the natural environment including forests,
lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures;" C
It may be true that the Appellants herein have their own houses within
3000 acres of land but they have been residing there for a long time. What
is being objected to by them is constructions of huge residential and
commercial complexes which even according to the High Court would not
only change the topography but also would change the place almost beyond D
the recognition of the poet.

It may be true that the development of a town is the job of the town
planning authority but the same should conform to the requirements of law.
.,._ Development must be sustainable in nature. A land use plan should be prepared
'J not only having regard to the provisions contained in the 1979 Act and the E
rules and regulations framed thereunder but also the provisions of other statues
enacted therefor and in particular those for protection and preservation of
ecology and environment.

As Visva Bharati has the unique distinction of being not only a
University of national importance but also a unitary one, the SSDA should F
be well-advised to keep in mind the provisions of the Act, the object and
purpose for which it has been enacted as also the report of the West Bengal
Pollution Control Board. It is sui generis.

It is idle to compare Shantiniketan with any other university. Truism is G
that Shantiniketan has unique features. Its environmental ambiance, thus,
must be maintained. There is no other university which having regard to the
purport and object of the Act, as would appear from the objects and reasons
thereof, can be compared with Visva Bharati. Our attention has not been
drawn to any other statute establishing any university which has such unique
features as Visva Bharati. H
518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] 2 S.C.R.

A Only because some advantages would ensue to the people in general by
reason of the proposed development, the same would not mean that the
ecology of the place would be sacrificed. Only because some encroachments
have been made and unauthorized buildings have been constructed, the same
by itself cannot be a good ground for allowing other constructional activities
to come up which would be in violation of the provisions of the Act. Illegal
B encroachments, if any, may be removed in accordancj! with law. It is trite law
that thee is no equality in illegality.

The Parliamentary Debates, some of which we have noticed herein before,
clearly go to show that the Act was enacted with particular objectives in
C view. Such statutory objects could not have been given a go by. It is not
suggested that the Santiniketan should remain as it was in 1921 but it cannot
. ,,,- .
be pennitted to become full of concrete jungles and industrial hub. For carrying
out further constructional activities, it may not be necessary for a builder to
apply to the University for seeking its pennission but the local-self government
which is responsible therefor must take into consideration the salutary
D principles laid down in the pollution control laws as well as the Act. The land
use and future planning of Santiniketan must be done in such a manner so
that the changes be brought about which would not be beyond the recognition
of the poet as also the provisions of the Act. SSDA in that sense must
distinguish itself from the other development authorities . .It has an extra-
E burden to shoulder. It cannot shut its eyes to the provisions of the Act and
the object and purport it seeks to achieve. It cannot ignore the environmental
impact assessm~nt made by the Board. It is one thing to say that the SSDA
may permit small. constructions to be made by the owners of the land or
additions or allow alterations to the existing building for residential purposes
but it is another thing to say that it would not consider the effect of the
F changes which may be brought about by turning Santiniketan into a commercial
and industrial hub.

We, with respect to the High Court, are not in a position to agree with
the observations which clearly run counter to its own findings of fact.

G CONCLUSION:
The question is - what do we do in the instant case?

SSDA issued notices as regard as regard adoption of the land use map
as far back as in the years 1999 and 2000. The State Government had granted
H a long term settlement in favour of SSDA with a further right to the residential
SUSHANTA TAGORE v. U.0.1. [SINHA . .I.] 519
- flat owners for the unexpired period of lease by an order dated 25.4.2003. In
2003 itself, the project had been given a green signal and it is stated before
A

us that the Respondent No. I 0 has already spent about 1.5 crores of rupees.

Our attention has further been drawn by Mr. Sanghi that the house
project of Bengal Peerless has already come into being. In that view of the
matter, we do not intend to stop the construction activities which are being B
carried out by the Respondent No. I 0 but direct that in future SSDA must
keep in mind the statutory provisions referred to hereinbefore as also the
observations made by us herein.

This appeal is disposed of with the aforementioned directions. No costs. C
K.K.T. Appeal disposed of.