Disposed

Amit Das vs

NGT11 Jul 2023Original Application No. 556/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Applicant challenged unauthorized riverine construction. The Tribunal noted the construction was sealed and partially demolished by authorities. No further action was required as the issue was addressed by the competent authority.

What did the court decide?

Directed MDDA to consider the matter in totality and initiate legal action if violations of Environmental (Protection) Rules, 1986 are found.

Amit Das vs — NGT (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Item No. 05

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

(BY HYBRID MODE)

¶5

Original Application No. 556/2022

Amit Das

Applicant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand & Ors.

¶10

Respondent(s)

¶11

Date of hearing: 11.07.2023

¶12

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER

¶13

Respondent: Mr. Rahul Verma, AAG for the State of Uttarakhand

¶14

Mr. Mukesh Verma, Advocate for UKPCB Mr. Vinay Garg & Ms. Neetu Rawat, Advocates for MDDA (R - 3)

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The grievance of the petitioner is that a house was being construction by Mr. Sardar Harminder by making bund on river Chanderbhaga. It is further stated that previously, the construction was stopped by Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority (MDDA) but Sardar Harminder has again started fixation of tiles stealthily in the interiors.

¶17

The matter was taken up by this Tribunal on 07.09.2022 and a joint Committee was constituted to verify the facts and submit a factual and action taken report.

¶18

Uttarakhand State PCB vide correspondence dated 19.12.2022 has submitted that a construction has been raised at the distance of 44 mtrs. from the river and a Civil Case No. C-0429/2022 dated 03.10.2020 has

¶19

¶20

been filed before the Competent Authority for demolition of the construction which is found to be illegal.

¶21

In the joint Committee report, it was found that Harmider Singh has constructed two rooms and one kitchen and toilet, total area (11.60 mtr. x 12 mtr.) on the right bank of Chanderbhaga river. It is further reported that no discharge of sewer is found in the river.

¶22

After registration of case no. C-0429/2022, the construction was sealed on 14.10.2020. Aggrieved by the order, Respondent No. 5 filed an Appeal No. 24/2020-21 before MDDA, Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal and vide order dated 05.11.2020, it was partially allowed with the direction that compounding portion of the building may be compounded and rest of the construction should be demolished.

¶23

It is further reported that unauthorized portion has been sealed. The portion which was found non-compoundable has been demolished. The Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer has submitted the report dated 07.02.2023 that the construction under objection has been demolished and it is further submitted that no new construction was carried out.

¶24

In view of the above facts, since the unauthorized construction has been demolished and matter has been taken in cognizance by the competent authority for taking proper decision, thus, no further action is required.

¶25

It is further argued that the construction have been demolished partially and no action has been taken by the authorities for the rest of the construction.

¶26

¶27

The MDDA of the Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal is directed to consider the matter in totality and if, it is found that construction is without any authority and in violation of Environmental (Protection) Rules, 1986, then legal action be initiated and in case the construction is illegal and unauthorized, further action be taken in accordance to law.

¶28

Original Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶29

Sheo Kumar Singh, CP

¶30

Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM

¶31

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶32

July 11, 2023 Original Application No. 556/2022 SN

¶33

Amit Das vs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Das vs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harichandra Shukla and Ors. vs

Vivek Tanwani vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gyanendra Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh through Principal Secretary Mineral Resources Department

News Item Published in Newspaper Deccan Herald Dated 01.03.2023 Titled Unregulated Tourism Pushing Gokarna to the Edge vs

Chinmaya Dash So Damodar Das Aged 42 Years vs State of Odisha Represented through Addl Cheif Secretary of Department of Forest Enviornment and Climate Change

Narendra Kushwaha vs Union of India Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change

Dharmender Kumar Singh vs

Laddu Sahni vs

Harichandra Shukla and Ors. vs

News Item Published in Newspaper Deccan Herald Dated 01.03.2023 Titled Unregulated Tourism Pushing Gokarna to the Edge vs

Dr. Sarvabhoum Bagali vs Deputy Commissioner Chairman- District Sand Monitoring Committee

Puran Lal Nishad and Ors. vs

Bachu Naga Venkateswara Rao & Ors. vs

News Item Published in the Siasat Daily Dated 18.04.2023 Titled Sand Mafia Attacks Bihar Mines Department Team Beats Up Woman Official vs