SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 2354

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
Sudhir Agarwal, Judicial Member, Afroz Ahmad, Expert Member
Rajinder Krishan Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No.881/2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Rajinder Krishan Sharma, Mr. Pawan Bansal
For the Respondents: Mr. Sumit Arora, Mr. Srinivas Vishven, Mr. Rahul Khurana, Mr. Rajeev Tejyan, Mr. Satyender Singh, Ms. Noopur Singhal, Mr. Pinaki Misra, Mr. Sanjeev Ralli, Mr. Shubham Yadav, Mr. Ravikant Yadav

NGT applications barred by limitation if filed beyond 5/6 years from when environmental cause of action first arose; ongoing land use post-complete construction not continuing cause of action, per special Act provisions.

Headnote:(A) National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Sections 14(3), 15(3) - Limitation - ‘Cause of action first arose’ - Construction on alleged protected forest land commenced in 1996, completed in 2000-2001 with occupancy certificate issued in 2001 - Application filed in 2022 held barred by limitation of six months under Section 14(3) and five years under Section 15(3) - Phrase ‘cause of action first arose’ excludes extension for continuing wrongs relating to same event - Continuous use of land post-completion does not constitute continuing or recurring cause of action as injury complete upon construction; no fresh environmental dispute triggering new limitation period. (Paras 8, 14-40)

(B) Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 - Section 2 - Protected forest notifications - Absence of land demarcation, khasra numbers or coordinates - Mere naming of bund and drain insufficient to establish encroachment without material linking disputed construction to notified areas - Prior departmental proceedings terminated without affirming violation. (Paras 42-43)

(C) Cause of action - Distinction between ‘cause of action first arose’, continuing cause of action and recurring cause of action explained - Continuing refers to same wrong persisting; recurring involves fresh, composite elements independent of initial breach - NGT Act as special law mandates strict adherence to limitation from first accrual. (Paras 24-38)

Facts of the case:
Applicants alleged encroachment on notified protected forest land (bund and drain) for commercial residential project violating environmental laws - Constructions completed over 20 years prior with occupancy certificate issued and third-party occupation - Forest department damage report later cancelled; prosecution withdrawn.

Findings of Court:
Original Application barred by limitation; no evidence disputed land forms part of notified protected forest.

Issues: (I) Whether OA barred by limitation under Sections 14(3), 15(3); (II) Whether constructions on protected forest land per notifications. (Para 12)

Ratio Decidendi: Limitation runs from when cause of action first arose in 1996/2001; existence of construction not continuing cause of action under special NGT Act provisions - Notifications lack specificity to prove forest land encroachment.

Result: Original Application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. alleged encroachment on protected forest land by developer. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. limitation bar and non-forest land contentions raised. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
3. construction completed over 20 years ago; oa time-barred. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
4. distinction between continuing and recurring cause of action. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)
5. oa barred by limitation; no proof of forest land violation. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)
6. application dismissed for lack of merit. (Para 44 , 45)

ORDER

1. Applicant no. 1 in person; Shri Rahul Khurana, Learned Counsel is appearing for respondents 3, 4, 6, 7, 9 and 10 and Shri Pinaki Misra, Learned Senior Counsel along with Shri Sanjeev Ralli, Learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Shubham Yadav and Shri Ravikant Yadav, Learned Counsels appear for respondent 8.

2. This Original Application (hereinafter referred to asOA) under Sections 14 and 15 of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NGT Act, 2010’) has been preferred by two applicants- Rajinder Krishan Sharma and Pawan Kumar Bansal, alleging that Notified Protected Forest land of “Sikanderpur-Nathupur Bund” and “Nathupur Drain” has been illegally encroached upon by respondent 8 for raising commercial building project namely ‘Ambience Island Lagoon Apartments’ contrary to the provisions of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, (hereinafter referred to as ‘EP Act, 1986’); Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to asIF Act, 1927’); and Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as ‘FC Act, 1980’). Applicants have sought a restrain order directing respondent 8 and its agents etc., from making any further construction activity and felling of trees on the above Notified Protected Forest land and further direction for removal of construction material and machinery from green belt and road laid down on the said land.

3. Facts in brief stated in OA are, that, applicant 1 is a retired Officer of Indian Forest Service and applicant 2 is a Journalist. They are basically working for protection of environment being environmentally conscious people and have visited this Tribunal by means of present application for protection of environment.

4. State Government of Haryana, vide Notification dated 02.12.1981 (page 25 of paper book), issued under Section 29 of IF Act, 1927, has declared certain land, mentioned in the Schedule, as ‘Protected Forest’ which included at item 67, ‘Sikanderpur-Nathupur Bund’ under the title ‘Name of Bunds’. Further, by Notification dated 05.07.1985 (page 33 of paper book), earlier Notification dated 02.12.1981 was amended and certain further areas were included therein, as ‘Protected Forest’ and under the heading “Name of Drains” at item no.17, ‘Nathupur Drain’ was included. It is thus contended that under above Notifications ‘Sikanderpur-Nathupur Bund’ and ‘Nathupur Drain’ both are ‘Protected Forest’.

5. Nathupur is a village situated in Aravali belt of District Gurgaon, State of Haryana. Area is prone for heavy floods during rainy seasons. To cope with heavy floods through Nathupur drain emanating from hills, the State Government constructed a flood protection bund which is called as “Sikanderpur Nathupur Bund”. It was constructed about more than 50 years ago across Nathupur drain covering “Sikander Nathupur land” upto Delhi border. Respondent 8 raised certain constructions on the land which is part of the above ‘Protected Forest’, hence, a Damage Report was prepared on 14.05.2008 by Forest Department alleging that behind “Ambience Mall”, “Ambience Island Lagoon Apartment” has encroached upon 380 meter (cid:215) 16 meter bund area and constructed buildings etc., thereon. A total 6080 m2 area of bund has been encroached, which is in violation of FC Act, 1980 and IF Act, 1927.

6. Prosecution Case No. 7G/08-09 was filed against Developer which was challenged in proceedings

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top