The National Green Tribunal must independently evaluate evidence and objections rather than solely relying on outsourced reports.

JUDGMENT

B.R. Gavai, J.

1. These appeals challenge the judgments and orders dated 20.03.2020 and 06.04.2021 passed by the learned National Green Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “NGT”) in OA No. 67 of 2015 (CZ) and Review Application No. 12 of 2020 respectively. There are a total of three appeals. One appeal is filed by the State Government, another by the Special Armed Forces and the third one by the private individuals affected by the orders passed by the learned NGT.

2. Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (Raman Khandelwal, Deepak Gupta and Sharad Singh Kumhre) had filed an Original Application being OA No. 67 of 2015 (CZ) praying for directions to preserve and protect the area known as Bajrang Nagar Pahadi in village Karondi in District Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh.

3. It appears that on 19.10.2016 the learned NGT had appointed one of its Former Expert Member as a Court Commissioner and he was asked to submit a report. The Court Commissioner visited the site on 21.11.2016 and submitted his report on 08.12.2016.

4. In the report, the salient findings as were recorded by the learned Court Commissioner were thus:

(i) That no trees were seen at the site in question, except for a number of bushes and shrubs;

(ii) That already there was no development zone of

30 metres from the boundary of the Talab, including one Gokulpur Talab;

(iii) That out of the 65 hectares of land, 48.50 hectares was reserved in development plan for residential purposes, 2 hectares for roads and 14.50 hectares for City Plantation.

(iv) That the area of 48.50 hectares shown for residential purpose was belonging to Special Armed Forces.

(v) That the area surrounding 12.32 square kilometers on south, south east and south west direction from the Gokulpur Talab, was a catchment area and any development surrounding the said area would obstruct the free flow of water towards Gokulpur Talab and Narmada river.

(vi) Finally, the Court Commissioner has recommended the development activities in Bajrang Nagar Pahadi should not be allowed as it lies in the catchment area of Gokulpur Talab and Narmada river. The Court Commissioner, therefore, suggested for declaring the said area as no development zone.

5. The learned NGT by the impugned judgment and order dated 20.03.2020 accepted the recommendation of the Court Commissioner as it is and declared an area within the distance of one kilometer surrounding the Gokulpur Talab as no development zone. Being aggrieved, the present appeals.

6. We have heard Shri Saurabh Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of Madhya Pradesh in CA Nos. 7664-7666 of 2021, Shri M.C. Dhingra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants in C.A. Nos. 7004-7005 of 2021 and Shri Raghav Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board arrayed as party-respondent in the appeals.

7. It is submitted by Shri Mishra and Shri Dhingra that if the directions issued by the learned NGT are implemented, the entire developmental activities would come to a standstill. It is further submitted that the development plan for the city of Jabalpur has considered all the aspects. It is further submitted that the specific objection of the State of Madhya Pradesh, that there is a direct and indirect catchment area, has not at all been considered by the learned NGT. It is submitted that while preparing the development plan, the Planning Authority has taken into consideration the aspect of the catchment area.

8. Though the original applicants/complainants before the learned NGT are duly served, no one has appeared on behalf of them. The respondent-Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board and the private respondents have supported the stand of the State Government.

9. It is pertinent to note that after the Court Commissioner submitted his report, the State of Madhya Pradesh had raised objections qua the said report. Further before the learned NGT, a reply was filed by the State, where in para 9 it was stated as under:

“The applicant has a