Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 2021

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

Revenue-recorded water bodies must be preserved despite land acquisition; cause of action for environmental challenge arises on auction/plotting knowledge, within 5-year limit; polluter pays compensation; alternative pond permitted for irreversibly developed sites.

Headnote:(A) National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Sections 14, 15, 20 - Limitation under Sections 14(3) and 15(3) - 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) - Application within 5-year limit under Section 15(3) for restitution of environment. (Paras 94-174)

(B) Res Judicata - Not applicable where prior application disposed without adjudication of issues, directing local authority to consider grievance - No hearing or final decision on merits. (Paras 175-227)

(C) Water Bodies/Wetlands - Revenue-recorded ponds (gair-mumkin johad) must be preserved as ecological resources under public trust doctrine - Damage by plotting, construction prohibited; restoration mandatory despite acquisition or development. (Paras 228-237)

(D) Polluter Pays Principle - Applied to development authority for damaging ponds by converting to plots - Environmental compensation of Rs.50 lakhs imposed for remediation. (Paras 248-268) (E) Sustainable Development/Precautionary Principle - One pond restored in situ; alternative pond creation permitted for developed land to balance ecology and third-party rights, avoiding prejudice to non-parties. (Paras 230-247)

Facts of the case:
Applicant challenged destruction of revenue-recorded water bodies (khasra nos. 24 and 28) by development authority through plotting, auctions (2021-22), allotments, and infrastructure (roads, sewerage 2014-15). Prior proceedings directed local consideration without merits adjudication. Authority claimed limitation from acquisition (2005); third parties defended allotments.

Findings of Court:
Khasra no.24 maintained as pond; khasra no.28 compensated by alternative pond construction within 6 months. Rs.50 lakhs environmental compensation to pollution board for rejuvenation plan execution by committee (pollution boards, district magistrate).

Issues: (I) Limitation; (II) Res judicata; (III) Existence of water bodies; (IV-VII) Restoration vs. alternative, environmental damage, polluter pays application, relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Environmental disputes' cause of action arises on knowledge of violation (auction notices); revenue-recorded ponds inviolable; polluter liable for remediation costs; Tribunal balances restoration with equity where irreversible development prejudices innocents.

Result: OA partly allowed.

Table of Content
1. water bodies destruction despite tribunal orders (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
2. hsvp limitation and third-party rights defense (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
3. impleadment of plot allottees and status quo (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
4. applicant's rejoinder on limitation and violations (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51)
5. hsvp development works timeline evidence (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68)
6. sector-50 layout and pocket details (Para 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82)
7. parties' arguments on limitation and merits (Para 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 89 , 90 , 91)
8. framing of issues for adjudication (Para 92 , 93)
9. no limitation bar; cause arose in 2021 (Para 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 , 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)
10. no res judicata from prior oa (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)
11. khasra lands confirmed as water bodies (Para 228 , 229)
12. restoration duty; alternative pond for khasra 28 (Para 230 , 231 , 232 , 233 , 234 , 235 , 236 , 237 , 238 , 239 , 240 , 241 , 242 , 243 , 244 , 245 , 246 , 247)
13. polluter pays rs.50 lakhs 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 bodies but no action was taken as remedial measures despite the direction given by this Tribunal vide order dated 20.07.2018 in Lt. Col. Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi vs. Union of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 2021

Revenue-recorded water bodies must be preserved despite land acquisition; cause of action for environmental challenge arises on auction/plotting knowledge, within 5-year limit; polluter pays compensation; alternative pond permitted for irreversibly developed sites.

Cases Referred (3)