Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 1879

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 and 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

Damage to recorded water bodies triggers NGT jurisdiction within 5 years from public auction knowledge; restoration mandatory unless third-party rights exist, then alternative site plus polluter pays compensation applies.

Headnote:(A) National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Sections 14, 15, 20 - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017 - Rule 4 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 6, 16 - Damage to water bodies recorded as gair-mumkin johad in revenue records - Land acquired in 2005 for urban development, later plotted and allotted - OA filed in 2023 held within limitation under Section 15(3) as cause of action arose from public auction notices in 2021-22 leading to irreversible environmental damage - Mere land acquisition or layout plan approval does not trigger environmental limitation; first public knowledge of plotting/auctioning constitutes cause of action - Water bodies must be preserved irrespective of acquisition; development cannot alter their ecological status - Precautionary principle mandates status quo maintenance; polluter pays principle applies to development authority for remediation costs - One water body restored to original status; alternative water body directed for second due to third-party rights and constructions - Environmental compensation of Rs.50 lakhs imposed for ecological damage. (Paras 94-174, 228-272)

(B) Res Judicata - Principle not applicable where prior OA disposed without adjudication, merely directing local authority to consider grievance - No issues heard or finally decided; subsequent OA maintainable. (Paras 175-227)

Facts of the case:
Land recorded as water bodies (khasra nos.24,28) acquired in 2005 for sector development; dried up over time; infrastructure laid 2014-15; plots carved and auctioned 2021-22 to third parties; some building plans sanctioned, constructions initiated; applicant sought restoration after auctions, following prior disposed OA.

Findings of Court:
Khasra no.24 maintained as water body; khasra no.28 compensated by alternative water body construction within 6 months; Rs.50 lakhs environmental compensation to remediation committee; status quo upheld.

Issues: (I) Limitation under Sections 14(3),15(3); (II) Res judicata from prior OA; (III) Status as water bodies; (IV-VII) Restoration vs. alternative, polluter pays application, directions.

Ratio Decidendi: Environmental cause of action arises on public knowledge of damage (auctions); water bodies inviolable despite acquisition; restoration primary unless third-party prejudice; polluter pays mandates compensation for irreversible harm.

Result: OA partly allowed.

Table of Content
1. destruction of historical water bodies violates environmental norms (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
2. supreme court mandates water body protection and restoration (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
3. land acquisition does not permit water body destruction (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
4. third party rights created on water body land (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)
5. continuing cause of action from ongoing violations (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51)
6. developmental infrastructure completed on disputed land (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82)
7. parties argue limitation and third party rights (Para 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91)
8. framing issues for environmental adjudication (Para 92)
9. ngt limitation reckoned from environmental knowledge date (Para 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. acquisition and layout approval not environmental cause (Para 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 136 , 137 , 138 , 139 , 140 , 141 , 142 , 143 , 144 , 145 , 146 , 147 , 148 , 149 , 150 , 151 , 152 , 153 , 154 , 155 , 156 , 157 , 158 , 159 , 160 , 161 , 162 , 163 , 164 , 165 , 166 , 167 , 168 , 169 , 170 , 171 , 172 , 173 , 174)
11. no res judicata without prior 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 must be preserved per supreme court directives (Para 230 , 231 , 232 , 233 , 234 , 235 , 236 , 237 , 238 , 239 , 240 , 241 , 242 , 243 , 244 , 245 , 246 , 247)
14. polluter pays compensation for environmental restoration (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)

JUDGMENT

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 1879

Damage to recorded water bodies triggers NGT jurisdiction within 5 years from public auction knowledge; restoration mandatory unless third-party rights exist, then alternative site plus polluter pays compensation applies.

Cases Referred (3)