Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 1843

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
Sudhir Agarwal, Judicial Member, Afroz Ahmad, Expert Member
Rohit Thakran – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 543/2023 (I.A. NO. 703/2023|I.A. NO. 239/2024|I.A. NO. 182/2024|I.A. NO. 195/2025|I.A. NO. 196/2025|I.A. NO. 30/2024)

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. A.R. Takkar, Mr. Manan Takkar, Ms. Astha Tyagi
For the Respondents: Mr. Rahul Khurana, Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Ms. Noopur Singhal, Mr. Sudeep, Mr. Rajan Kumar Hans, Mr. Param Rana

Revenue-recorded water bodies must be preserved post-acquisition; limitation from violation knowledge (auction); restoration primary, alternative with polluter pays compensation where development/third-party rights advanced.

Headnote:(A) National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Sections 14, 15, 20 - Limitation under Sections 14(3) and 15(3) - Cause of action first arose upon public auction notices for plots on water body land in 2021, not land acquisition (2003-2005) or layout plan approval (2008) or development works (2014-15) - OA filed in 2023 within 5-year limit under Section 15(3) for restoration relief. (Paras 94-174)

(B) Res Judicata - Prior OA disposed without adjudication, directing local authority consideration - No issues heard or finally decided, hence not barred by res judicata or constructive res judicata. (Paras 175-227)

(C) Water Bodies/Wetlands - Land recorded as gair-mumkin johad (ponds) in revenue records must be preserved despite acquisition and development - Damage by plotting, allotment, construction violates public trust doctrine, precautionary principle; restoration ordinarily required but alternative pond creation allowed considering third-party rights and development progress. (Paras 228-247)

(D) Polluter Pays Principle - Development authority liable for environmental compensation of Rs.50 lakhs for damaging ponds, to fund remediation despite alternative pond proposal. (Paras 248-268)

Facts of the case:
Applicant challenged destruction of two water bodies (recorded as gair-mumkin johad in revenue records since 1850, areas 20K-10M and 15K-4M) in acquired land developed into residential sector - Plots carved, allotted (17/19 with possession, some building plans sanctioned, constructions started) - Prior OA disposed directing District Magistrate inquiry, no action taken - HSVP claimed limitation from acquisition (2005)/development (2014), no water existence per satellite images.

Findings of Court:
Khasra lands confirmed as water bodies; OA within limitation; no res judicata; one pond maintained as-is, alternative pond of equal size for second; Rs.50 lakhs compensation for remediation.

Issues: (I) Limitation; (II) Res judicata; (III) Water body status; (IV-VII) Restoration vs. alternative, environmental damage, polluter pays application, directions.

Ratio Decidendi: Environmental disputes' cause of action arises from knowledge of violation (auction notices); revenue-recorded water bodies protected under precautionary principle/public trust; restoration primary but alternative viable with compensation where third-party rights created; polluter pays mandates remediation cost liability.

Result: OA partly allowed - Maintain one water body status quo; create alternative equal-sized pond within 6 months; pay Rs.50 lakhs compensation to Pollution Board for rejuvenation plan execution.

Table of Content
1. destruction of historical water bodies violates ngt orders (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
2. supreme court mandates water body preservation (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
3. hsvp defends via land acquisition and third-party rights (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
4. plot allottees claim bona fide purchaser protection (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
5. continuing violations extend limitation period (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51)
6. development infrastructure completed 2014-2015 (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68)
7. sector 50 comprises multiple fragmented khasra pockets (Para 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82)
8. parties argue limitation and third-party rights (Para 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 89 , 90 , 91)
9. ngt limitation reckoned from environmental knowledge date (Para 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 131)
10. oa within limitation; land acquisition not cause trigger (Para 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 136 , 137 , 138 , 139 , 140 , 141 , 142 , 143 , 144 , 145 , 146 , 148 , 149 , 151 , 152 , 153 , 154 , 156 , 157 , 158 , 159 , 160 , 161 , 162 , 163 , 165 , 166 , 167 , 168 , 169 , 170 , 171 , 172 , 173 , 174)
11. no res judicata absent issue adjudication (Para 175 , 176 , 177 , 178 , 179 , 180 , 181 , 182 , 183 , 184 , 185 , 186 , 187 , 188 , 189 , 190 , 191 , 192 , 193 , 194 , 195 , 196 , 197 , 198 , 199 , 200 , 201 , 202 , 203 , 204 , 205 , 206 , 207 , 208 , 209 , 210 , 211 , 212 , 213 , 214 , 215 , 216 , 217 , 218 , 219 , 220 , 221 , 222 , 223 , 224 , 225 , 226 , 227)
12. revenue records confirm water body status (Para 228 , 229)
13. water bodies protected under wetlands rules (Para 230 , 231 , 232 , 233 , 234 , 235 , 236 , 237 , 238 , 239 , 240 , 241 , 242 , 243 , 244 , 245 , 246 , 247)
14. polluter pays mandates environmental compensation (Para 248 , 249 , 250 , 251 , 252 , 253 , 254 , 255 , 256 , 257 , 258 , 259 , 260 , 261 , 262 , 263 , 264 , 265 , 266 , 267 , 268 , 269 , 270 , 271 , 272 , 273 , 274)

BY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1. Rohit Thakran, son of Late Amarpreet Thakran, resident of New Plot No. 136-137, Dear Wood Chase, Nirwana, Sector-50, Village Adampur, Gram Panchayat Jharsa, District–Gurugram, State of Haryana has instituted present proceedings by filing this Original Application (hereinafter referred to as ‘OA’) under Sections 14 and 15 and all other enabling provisions of National Green Tribunal Act 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NGT Act, 2010’) being aggrieved by the alleged construction activities on the part of Haryana Shehri Vikas Paradhikaran (hereinafter referred to as ‘HSVP’) i.e., respondent 2 and Haryana Town And Country Planning Department (hereinafter referred to as ‘HTCPD’) i.e., respondent 3 on the land of two water bodies/reservoirs which are existing in khasra no. 24 and 28 in village Adampur, Gram Panchayat Jharsa, Gurugram.

2. The facts in brief stated in OA by the applicant are that two water bodies are/were existing in khasra no. 24 and 28 in village Adampur, Gram Panchayat Jharsa, Gurugram since 1850 and being used by neighbouring residents, villagers and animals as a source of water for various purposes. These water bodies are identified and duly recognised by State of Haryana also since they formed part of a list of water bodies submitted by State of Haryana before this Tribunal in OA 325/2015, Lt. Col. Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi vs. Union of India wherein, this Tribunal vide order dated 20.07.2018 issued directions for restoration of 123 water bodies in Gurugram which included water bodies in khasra no. 24 and 28. Though State Government was under duty to restore the water bodie

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 1843

Revenue-recorded water bodies must be preserved post-acquisition; limitation from violation knowledge (auction); restoration primary, alternative with polluter pays compensation where development/third-party rights advanced.

Cases Referred (3)