Dismissed

Ia No. 34/2024 in Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 15/2023 of Machindra Mahadeo Shinde v. Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprisess

NGT10 Jul 2025IA No. 34/2024 in Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 15/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal held that since the applicants' property lies within the Red and Blue Flood Lines of the River Sina, no construction can be permitted there. Rejected the argument regarding ownership and tax payments, dismissing the plea to continue construction.

What did the court decide?

Relief to continue construction was rejected; property within prohibited riverbed area.

Ia No. 34/2024 in Misc Application in disposed of cases… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

(Pune Bench)

¶2

Item No.7

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

[THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]

¶5

MISC. APPLICATION NO.15 OF 2023 (WZ) I.A. NO.34 OF 2024 (WZ)

¶6

¶7

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.01 OF 2023 (WZ)

¶8

Imran Husen Pathan & Ors.

¶9

…..Applicants

¶10

Versus

¶11

The Principal Secretary, MoEF, GOI & Ors.

¶12

….Respondents

¶13

Date of hearing: 10.07.2025

¶14

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER

¶15

Applicants : Ms. Pratiksha Kale, Advocate Respondents : Mr. Aniruddha S. Kulkarni, Advocate for R-3/CPCB & R-4/Envt. Deptt. & R-5/MPCB

¶16

ORDER

¶17

We are passing this order in continuation to the earlier orders dated 08.12.2023, 08.01.2024, 12.01.2024, 07.02.2024, 23.02.2024, 07.03.2024, 18.04.2024, 30.04.2024, 27.08.2024, 13.11.2024, 31.01.2025 and 25.06.2025.

¶18

From the side of applicants, learned counsel Ms. Pratiksha Kale has appeared before us, who has filed service affidavit, as per which service of notice upon all the Respondents is found to be sufficient.

¶19

From the side of Respondent No.3- CPCB, for Respondent No.4State Environment Department and for Respondent No.5- MPCB, learned counsel Mr. Aniruddha S. Kulkarni has appeared, who submits that he

¶20

Page 1 of 8

¶21

does not want to file reply affidavit in this matter on behalf of these Respondents.

¶22

None has appeared from the side of Respondent No.6- District Collector, Aurangabad, although we find that reply affidavit dated 12.11.2024 has already been filed from their side, wherein it is submitted that in compliance with the order dated 30/04/2024 passed by this Tribunal, directing the District Collector, Ahilyanagar and the Chief Engineer, Water Resource Department (Irrigation Department), Ahilyanagar to submit reply in respect of the fact whether the property, which is being claimed by the applicants to be the owners of, falls within blue line or red line of the river Sina or not; whether the said line has been drawn or not; and the proof thereof was also directed to be placed before the Tribunal, reply is contained in para no.3 of their affidavit to the following effect:-

¶23

“3. Accordingly meeting of all concerned offices in the matter has been organized on 12/08/2024 and 06/09/2024 at the office of Collectorate Ahilyanagar. As per the order passed by Hon'ble National Green Tribunal Western Zone Bench Pune dated 30/04/2024, the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Division (Special Projects), Irrigation Bhawan Pune has been informed to submit the report pursuant to reference letter no.3 issued by the office of Collector Ahilyanagar.

¶24

Accordingly, Assistant Chief Engineer (Special Project), Water Resources Department, Pune has submitted report to the office of respondent no.6 wherein the two important queries have been answered by the said office which has been summarized in the chart given below:-

¶25

Sr.	Point	Report
No.
1.	Whether the Property which is	The Survey No./Gat No.38 of
	being claimed by the	Mauje Nalegaon is adjacent
	applicants to be the owners	to River Sina and is within

¶26

Page 2 of 8

¶27

”

¶28

	falls within blue line or red line of the River Sina or not.	Red and Blue Lines of River Sina.
2.	Whether the said line has been drawn or not. The proof thereof shall also be placed before us by the next date.	The work of drawing red and blue lines for Sina River has been completed by Irrigation Department near Ahmednagar City. The map showing red and blue line is attached herewith.

¶29

From the above reply, it is absolutely clear that the District Collector

¶30

has categorically stated that the Survey Number/ Gut No.38 of Mauje, Nalegaon is found adjacent to the river Sina and is lying within Red and Blue Flood Lines of the said river and that the work of drawing red and blue lines for Sina River has been completed by the Irrigation Department near Ahmednagar City. The map showing red and blue line is also annexed. But we do not find the same to have been annexed, although the said map is found annexed with the rejoinder affidavit dated 10.01.2025 of the applicants at page no.1136 of the paper book, which is to the following

¶31

effect:-

¶32

Page 3 of 8

¶33

We do not find the replies of the other Respondents to be material in the case in hand because what is important for us to be decided in this matter is as to whether the property of the applicants lies in Survey No./Gut No.8, Mauje Nalegaon or not because entire Gut Number is found to lie within Red and Blue Lines of River Sina. It is admitted case of the applicants that their property lies in Survey No./Gut No.38/2/3/4, situated at Nalegaon and it is the case of the applicants the Survey No./Gut No.38, Mauje Nalegaon, is in two parts, i.e. Survey No./Gut No.38 and Survey No./Gut No.38/2/3/4. But from the present proceeding, which is filed by the applicants in respect of Survey No./Gut No.38 and from perusal of the record, nowhere it is mentioned that the case is regarding Survey No./Gut No.38/2/3/4, Mauje Nalegaon. The said Survey No./Gut No.38/2/3/4 was originally owned by one Dagdabai Sahadu Datrange, who was the owner and possessor of the said property. After the demise of the Dagdabai Sahadu Datrange, her two sons namely Manohar Sahadu Datrange and Govardhan Sahadu Datrange were entered in the owner's column. These two brothers are having half share in it and they sold their land to 1) Adhinath Mahadeo Shinde, 2)Kusum Adhinath Shinde and 3)Vaibhav Adhinath Shinde, who were minor at that time but guardian of minor Vaibhav is shown as Kusum Adhinath Shinde. Adhinath Shinde & others purchased the said property from Govardhan Sahadu Datrange on 19/07/1990 for Rs.1 Lac. Rest of the facts, we are not taking into consideration because it narrates only the earlier owners.

¶34

But at page no.15 in para no.3, it is made clear that on 06/03/2019, the present applicants Imran Hasan Pathan and 8 others have purchased 12R out of S.NO. 38 admeasuring 4300 Sq. Mts. from Mahesh Bhimraj Ekade & Rajesh Bhimraj Ekade (earlier owners). Since then the applicants became the owners and possessors of the said land.

¶35

Page 4 of 8

¶36

Thereafter, the applicants applied for electricity from Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company and obtained electricity on 06/03/2019. All the applicants are having their names entered as owners of the said land from the year 01/04/2022. The record shows that Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation, after verifying the record and visiting the site, entered the names of the applicants. Thereafter, Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation issued tax bills to the applicants and thereafter, they are regularly paying the tax to the Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation.

¶37

Thereafter, the applicants applied to the Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation for permission for construction of the building. The said Corporation on 13/03/2023 wrote a letter to the applicants that within a period of 30 days, they should apply for regularizing the construction. Thereafter, as per the order, applicants have paid construction permission fees and documents, but the Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation did not give the said permission stating that the said land is falling in Sina riverbed. Thereafter, the applicants have moved the application to the Town Planning Office on 03/03/2023 saying that the record as regards the Sina river bed should be supplied to them. But the same was never supplied. On 03/03/2023, the Corporation informed to the applicants that the said record is not available with them. The applicants, at the same time, also moved an application to the Land Records Office to supply Sina river bed record to them, but Land Record Officer after oral and written requests did not supply the same. Therefore, under Right to Information Act, the applicants moved an application to the Land Record Officer to supply the said record to them. On 24/3/2023, Land Record Officer supplied information that, no record is available with them as regards the river bed of Sina.

¶38

Page 5 of 8

¶39

Since the applicants have constructed the building on N.A. plot legally and they are paying the taxes and having the electricity bills, they have spent Lacs of rupees for the said construction. The applicantsMachindra Shinde and Adinath Shinde (applicants in the earlier Original Application) never impleaded the present applicants in the earlier Original Application despite them being necessary parties.

¶40

After having gone through the pleadings of the applicants and that of the District Collector, Aurangabad, we are of the view that in the present Original Application, we have to decide as to whether the property, which is being claimed to be owned by the applicants, falls within Red and Blue Flood Lines of the River Sina or not because as per the law, if the same is found to be lie within the said lines of the River Sina, no consideration can be allowed therein.

¶41

In our previous order dated 31.03.2023 passed in Original Application No.01/2023 (WZ), we had directed the District Collector to ensure that blue line and red line of the river Sina be drawn and whatever illegal constructions are found within the bed of River Sina, be immediately removed and that no further new construction be allowed to be done there, the same being prohibited area.

¶42

It appears that in pursuance to the above direction, the District Collector has issued Notices to the applicants for removal of their construction having been found to lie within Red and Blue Flood Lines of the River Sina, against which the present applicants have approached before this Tribunal by filing the present Misc. Application.

¶43

The main argument of learned counsel for the applicants is that there is plenty of evidence to show that the property of the applicants does not lie within the Red and Blue Flood Lines of the River Sina. But when we

¶44

Page 6 of 8

¶45

enquired from her as to where is the evidence to that effect, she has pointed out that a Panchanama was prepared on 09.11.2024, which is annexed at page nos.1154 to 1155 of the paper book, wherein it is recorded “ The survey of the Sena Riverbed was conducted by the Hon’ble Deputy Superintendent, Land Records Office, Ahilyanagar on 25.07.2023. The boundaries of the residential houses and shops intended for commercial use are located 15 meters west of the riverbed boundary…..”.

¶46

Having drawn our attention to the above paragraph, it is urged by learned counsel for the applicants that it is quite clear that the property of the applicants was found located 15 meters away from the riverbed of Sina on western side, but she could not make it clear through the said Panchanama as to whether the said property was lying within the Red and Blue Flood Lines of the River Sina because nowhere, mention is made in that regard in the said Panchanama.

¶47

Thereafter, learned counsel for the applicants has drawn our attention to page no.1136 of the paper book, which is a Map prepared by the Water Resource Department on 07.10.2019 and stated that prior to the preparation of this Map, the property in question was purchased by the applicants. Therefore, subsequent to the said purchase, the property is shown lying within the Red and Blue Flood Lines of the River Sina and thus, it could not deprive them of their right to continue to have their construction at the site in question.

¶48

We are not in agreement with the above argument made by learned counsel for the applicants because the District Collector in their affidavit, which we have already mentioned above, has clearly stated that entire Survey No.38, of which the property of the applicants is forming part of, is falling within the Red and Blue Flood Lines of the River Sina and hence as

¶49

Page 7 of 8

¶50

per that, no construction can be permitted in that area. In the present Original Application, the issue, how the applicants came to be the owners of the property in question, is not being taken into consideration by us, we are simply concerned with the construction in question being found to lie within the Red and Blue Flood Lines of the River Sina and hence, the applicants do not deserve to be granted any relief as prayed.

¶51

In view of above direction, we dispose of the present Original Application accordingly.

¶52

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶53

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶54

Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM

¶55

July 10, 2025 MISC. APPLICATION NO.15 OF 2023 (WZ) I.A. NO.34 OF 2024 (WZ) IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.01 OF 2023 (WZ) P.Kr

¶56

Page 8 of 8

Ia No. 34/2024 in Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 15/2023 of Machindra Mahadeo Shinde v. Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprisess

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ia No. 34/2024 in Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 15/2023 of Machindra Mahadeo Shinde v. Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprisess

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

1. Fakir Mohan Patel S/O Jay Karan Patel Aged About 64YEARS vs 1. State of Odisha through Additional Chief Secretary Forest and Environment Climate Change Department Government of Odisha

Ignatious K.J. vs K.J. Joseph

Ignatious K.J. vs K.J. Joseph

Paramparik Machimmar Bachav Samajik Kruti Samittee vs Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority

Jeetu Yadav vs Up State Pollution Control Board through Its Member Secretary

Jeetu Yadav vs Up State Pollution Control Board through Its Member Secretary

Jeetu Yadav vs Up State Pollution Control Board through Its Member Secretary

Jeetu Yadav vs Up State Pollution Control Board through Its Member Secretary

Madhukar Vishnu Gaikwad vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Green Space through Its President Mr Praveen Dlima vs State of Goa

Paramparik Machimmar Bachav Samajik Kruti Samittee vs Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority

Shashikant Vitthal Kamble vs Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change (Moef & Cc) New Delhi.

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 15/2023 in Original Application No. 1/2023 of Machindra Mahadeo Shinde vs Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprisess

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 6/2024 in Execution Application No. 4/2024 of Prashant Dattatray Patil vs State of Maharashtra through Its Environment Secretary