Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 1984

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

For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. A.R. Takkar, Mr. Manan Takkar and Ms. Astha Tyagi, Advocates for Applicant (through VC)
For the Respondents:Mr. Rahul Khurana, Advocate for respondents no. 1, 3 to 9, Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Senior AAG with Ms. Noopur Singhal, Advocates for respondent no. 2 with Mr. Sudeep, ADA HSVP, Mr. Rajan Kumar Hans and Mr. Param Rana, Advocates for respondents no. 10 to 17 and 19 to 20

Revenue-recorded water bodies must be preserved; cause of action for environmental challenge arises on public violation notice; restoration primary but alternatives with compensation allowed for irreversible development/third-party rights under polluter pays.

Headnote:(A) National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Sections 14, 15, 20 - Limitation - Cause of action first arose when public auction notices for plots on water body land issued in 2021, not from 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 restitution of environment. (Paras 94-174)

(B) Res judicata - Prior OA disposed without adjudication, directing local authority to consider grievance - No issues heard/finally decided, hence not barred. (Paras 175-227)

(C) Water bodies - Land recorded as gair-mumkin johad in revenue records must be maintained as pond - Damage by converting to plots violates public trust doctrine, precautionary principle. (Paras 228-237)

(D) Polluter pays principle - Development authority liable for environmental compensation for damaging water bodies despite acquisition - Rs.50 lakhs imposed for remediation. (Paras 248-268) (E) Restoration - Undamaged water body (khasra 24) to be maintained as pond - For damaged water body (khasra 28) with third-party rights, alternative water body of same size to be created within 6 months. (Paras 230-270)

Facts of the case:
Applicant challenged development authority's conversion of revenue-recorded water bodies (khasra 24, 28) into residential plots via acquisition, layout plans, infrastructure, and auctions (2021-23) creating third-party rights - Prior proceedings disposed without merits decision - Sought restoration, tree replanting, construction halt.

Findings of Court:
Water bodies confirmed via records; OA within limitation; no res judicata; partial restoration impractical due to developments/third-party interests; compensation for damage; alternative pond mandated.

Issues: (I) Limitation under Sections 14(3)/15(3); (II) Res judicata; (III) Existence as water bodies; (IV-VII) Restoration, environmental damage, polluter pays, directions.

Ratio Decidendi: Environmental disputes' cause of action arises on public knowledge of violation (auction), not prior acquisition/development; revenue-recorded ponds protected under public trust; restoration primary but alternatives viable with compensation where irreversible changes/third-party rights exist; polluter pays applies to state agencies damaging ecology.

Result: OA partly allowed - Maintain one water body; create alternative for second within 6 months; Rs.50 lakhs compensation to pollution board for rejuvenation; compliance report required.

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 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
2. hsvp defends via land acquisition and third-party rights (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
3. applicant rebuts limitation; continuing environmental violation (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51)
4. development timelines disputed; no early water body destruction (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)
5. parties argue limitation and third-party rights (Para 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 89 , 90 , 91)
6. ngt jurisdiction under sections 14-15; limitation from knowledge (Para 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108)
7. cause of action tied to environmental dispute awareness (Para 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 131)
8. acquisition and layout plans do not trigger limitation (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)
9. 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)
10. water bodies confirmed; restoration with alternatives (Para 228 , 229 , 230 , 231 , 232 , 233 , 234 , 235 , 236 , 237 , 238 , 239 , 240 , 241 , 242 , 243 , 244 , 245 , 246 , 247)
11. polluter pays compensation; partial restoration ordered (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 bodies but no action was taken as remedial measures despite the direction given by this Tribunal vide or

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 1984

Revenue-recorded water bodies must be preserved; cause of action for environmental challenge arises on public violation notice; restoration primary but alternatives with compensation allowed for irreversible development/third-party rights under polluter pays.

Cases Referred (4)