The Tribunal disposed of applications alleging illegal felling of 454 trees in the Taj Trapezium Zone, holding that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had already considered the issue and issued necessary directions, thus no further action was required.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Item Nos. 15 & 16 Court No. 1
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Original Application No. 1191/2024 (I.A. Nos.543/2024, 324/2025 & 323/2025)
| Narendra Kumar Goswami | Applicant | |
|---|---|---|
| Versus | ||
| State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. | Respondent(s) | |
| With | ||
| Original Ap | plication No. 1192/2024 | |
Mahant Madhu Mangal Sharan Das Shukla |
Applicant | |
| Versus | ||
| State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. | Respondent(s) | |
| Date of hearing: 05.05.2025 |
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER
| Applicant: | Mr. Narendra Kumar Goswami, Applicant in Person in OA 1191/2024 (Through VC) |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Mr. Pinaki Misra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rahul Kumar, Mr. Sarthak Chaturvedi & Mr. Vaibhav Maheswari, Advs. for R - 10 in OA 1191/2024 & for Intervenor in OA 1192/2024 Mr. Bhanwar Pal Singh Jadon, Mr. Harsh Vardhan Singh Rajawat, Ms. Gargi Chaturvedi & Ms. Anjali Sharma, Advocates for respondents no. 4 & 5 in OA 1191/2024 & for the State of UP in OA 1192/2024 Mr. Rachit Mittal, Mr. Parish Mishra & Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Advs. for MVDA (Through VC) Mr. Aditya Vaibhav Singh & Mr. Gautam Singh, Advs. for UPPCB Mr. Mohit Singhal, Adv. for CPCB in OA 1191/2024 Ms. Suhasini Sen & Ms. Massoma Rizvi, Advs. for MoEF & CC in OA 1192/2024 |
| Mr. Aakash Bajaj, Ms. Prerna Banerjee & Ms. Sania Abbasi, Advs. for R - 8 & 9 in OA 1191/2024 |
1
ORDER
“ΙΑ ΝΟ. 237739 AND 237765/2024 (APPLN. FOR IMPLEADMENT AND DIRECTIONS ON B/O RAM AUTAR)
REPORT NO.35/2024
14. Heard Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant - Shri Shiv Shankar Agarwal.
15. It is true that Shri Shiv Shankar Agarwal has filed an affidavit where he has accepted that he felled 454 trees without prior permission of this Court. We have perused three reports of the CEC. It will take a minimum of 100 years to again re-generateor recreate the green cover created by 454 trees which were brazenly cut without permission of this Court. Notwithstanding the embargo put by this Court which is in force right from the year 2015, he has indulged in this illegality. Destruction of so many trees adversely affects the environment and lives of several human beings.
2
16. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG, submitted that before making any construction on the property on which the trees were in existence, the permission of the TTZ Authority is required. There is an order dated 23rd October, 2024 passed by the Vice Chairman of the Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority directing that no map of the site in question shall be approved till the case is resolved by the National Green Tribunal.
17. An appeal is made by the learned senior counsel appearing for Shri Shiv Shankar Agarwal that the minimum penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) be reduced. His second contention is that the requirement of compensatory plantation should be modified by permitting compensatory plantation at some other property. There is no reason to show any leniency to a person who has caused huge damage to the environment.
18. We accept the recommendations in paragraph 14 of the Report No.35/2024 which read thus:.
b) The Forest Department shall also recover the requisite penalty due under the provisions of the UP Protection of Trees Act, 1976 for this illegal felling.
c) The Forest Department should take punitive action against the land owners for felling 32 trees that were standing in the Protected Forest as per the provisions under the Indian Forest Act 1972.
d) An entry path to the extant private land has been constructed through the protected forest. Hence Forest Department shall
3
initiate action under the Forest Conservation Act 1980 for illegal breaking of land without prior permission of the Central Government.
e) The area be restored by planting 422 trees on the private land and 32 trees in the protected forest area at the cost of the land owner.
f) The Forest Department shall plant and maintain 4540 saplings of Indigenous species (ten times the number of trees felled as per norms applicable for compensatory plantation in TTZ) and another 4540 as penal compensatory plantation (ten times the number of trees felled without the prior permission of this Hon'ble Court) i.e. a total of 9080 saplings at the cost of the land owners, at any nearby place to be provided by land owner which is suitable for plantation. This land shall also be declared as the Protected Forest by the State Government.
g) The entire timber illegally felled shall be confiscated by the Forest Department and disposed of as per the norms of the UP Forest Department.
h) The Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority should ensure that no construction of any sort takes place at that part of the extent site where the Forest Department will do the Plantation.
i) The Chairman, TTZ authority shall ensure compliance of all the conditions/penalties that may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court. The Chairman, TTZ authority shall intimate such compliance to the CECon a quarterly basis till all conditions imposed by this Hon'ble Court are complied with.
j) This Hon'ble Court may consider imposing any other penalty for the contempt of this Hon'ble Court committed by the land owners by felling the trees without seeking prior permission of this Hon'ble Court.”
19. We also direct that even if permissions are granted to Shri Shiv Shankar Agarwal to make any construction on the land in question or any change in relation to the land in question, the permission shall not be acted upon without the leave of this Court, as this Court will have to be fully satisfied regarding the compliances made by Shri Shiv
4
Shankar Agarwal with the directions of this Court in terms of the recommendations which are quoted above.
20. The Report Nos. 29/2024, 35/2024 and 4/2025 are disposed of on the above terms.
21. The contempt notice issued to Shri Shiv Shankar Agarwal will remain pending till a compliance affidavit is filed by him before this Court and till the CEC certifies that all the conditions which are mentioned above are fulfilled by him.”
Prakash Shrivastava, CP
Sudhir Agarwal, JM
Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM
May 05, 2025 Original Application No. 1191/2024 & Original Application No. 1192/2024 JG..
5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal can issue further directions regarding the felling of trees in the Taj Trapezium Zone after directions were passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Whether further orders are required in the original applications pending before the Tribunal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Writ Petition No. 13381/1984Referred¶12
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Narendra Kumar Goswami
Mahant Madhu Mangal Sharan Das Shukla
State of Uttar Pradesh
Prakash Shrivastava
Sudhir Agarwal
A. Senthil Vel
As recorded by the court registry
An application for interim relief made while the main matter is pending.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
