Disposed

Kishan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh

NGT3 Dec 2025IA No. 782/2025 in Original Application No. 165/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Indicative of an order granting impleadment to additional respondents (developers) and rejecting an interim prayer to stay construction, noting lack of authentic material regarding pre-cleared construction. Proceeding filed in the name of State of UP.

What did the court decide?

Impleadment of additional respondents allowed; interim prayer to stay construction rejected.

Kishan Lal vs State of Uttar Pradesh — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item No. 20

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Original Application No. 165/2025

¶5

(I.A. No.782/2025)

¶6

Krishan Lal Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶9

Date of hearing: 03.12.2025

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER HON’BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER

¶11

Applicant: Mr. M. Dutta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amarnath, Mr. Brijesh Jha & Ms. Nupur Jha, Advs. for Applicant

¶12

Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Upadhyay, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, Mr. Harshit Joshi, Ms. Eisha Krishn, Ms. Mansi Bachani, Mr. Anubhav Anand & Mr. Prashant Nair, Advs. for R - 2

¶13

Mr. Bhanwar Pal Singh Jadon, Ms. Disha Tiwari, Ms. Gargi Chaturvedi & Ms. Anjali Sharma, Advs. for R - 1, 4, 5, 8 & 11

¶14

Ms. Priyanka Swami, Adv. for SEIAA, UP Mr. Atif Suhrawardy, Adv. for CPCB (Through VC) Mr. Gigi. C. George, Adv. for R - 7

¶15

Mr. Yagyawalkya Singh & Dr. Divya Swamy, Advs. for R - 3 (GDA)

¶16

ORDER

¶17

In this original application, the grievance of the Applicant is against the construction activities by Respondent No. 2 in Integrated Township at Village Shahpur Bamheta, NH-24, District Ghaziabad, U.P.

¶18

The Applicant alleges that the Respondent No. 2 has not obtained the requisite Environmental Clearance (EC), Consent to Establish (CTE) and Consent to Operate (CTO) in violation of the EIA Notification, 2006, Water Act and Air Act.

¶19

IA No. 782/2025 has been filed by the Respondent No. 2 for impleadment of Floor Space Index (FSI) Developers disclosed in the IA as Respondents No. 15 to 23. The plea of the Respondent No. 2 in the IA is

¶20

¶21

that he is seeking impleadment of Nitishree Group developer and several Floor Space Index (FSI) developers who, pursuant to MOUs, registered Sale Deeds executed during 2014-15 have developed the township and are the present owners in possession of individual land parcels and have undertaken construction of group housing towers forming the subject matter of dispute in this OA.

¶22

Undisputedly, these additional respondents are likely to be affected by any order passed in this OA. Hence, the IA No. 782/2025 is allowed. The Applicant is directed to amend the cause title of the OA and serve the newly added respondents.

¶23

Learned Counsel for the Respondents No. 1, 11 and 12 has sought permission to withdraw the reply affidavit dated 27.11.2025 filed on behalf of these respondents. She is permitted to file an appropriate application duly supported by the affidavit making such a prayer.

¶24

Counsel for the Applicant has prayed for an interim relief by submitting that the construction was commenced by the Respondent No. 2 prior to the issuance of environmental clearance. He submits that though the environmental clearance was issued to the Respondent No. 2 on 30.09.2011, but it had commenced construction from 2006. In support of such a submission, he has placed reliance upon clause-3(i) of the table extracted in the development agreement dated 13.02.2007 filed as Annexure R-6 page 65 which stipulates that the date of start of work for the project shall be treated as date of approval of DPR by the Government agency. Referring to the para 16 of the reply dated 02.12.2025 filed by the Respondent No. 2 he has submitted that the DPR was approved on 15.09.2006, therefore, the construction should be taken to commence from that date. He has further relied upon the findings recorded in the report of the joint Committee that 07.08.2025.

¶25

¶26

Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 has opposed the interim prayer.

¶27

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the joint Committee in its report dated 07.08.2025 has not given any finding relating to the construction prior to the issuance of the EC. No authentic or reliable material has been pointed out by learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant to show that any construction was made by the Respondent No. 2 before the issuance of the EC in the year 2011. Reliance on clause 3(i) of the table in development agreement dated 13.12.2025 alone does not establish that on the spot any construction was done before granting EC.

¶28

That apart by allowing IA No. 782/2025, additional respondents are impleaded in this OA who are yet to be served. These additional respondents are the present owners in possession of individual land parcels subject matter of this OA and are likely to be affected by any order passed in this OA.

¶29

In such circumstances, no ground is made out to grant the interim relief at this stage, the prayer is accordingly rejected.

¶30

List on 20.02.2026.

¶31

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶32

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶33

A. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶34

December 03, 2025 Original Application No. 165/2025 (I.A. No.782/2025) dv

¶35

Kishan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh

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

M/S Rama Natural Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas

M/S. Mabel Hayes Inc. vs Delhi Pollution Control Committee

Pareshbhai K Thummar vs Seiaa

(I) Mohammad Ilyas (Ii) Md. Saraj (Iii) Arun Kumar Ladia vs State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (Seiaa)

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

Sarang Yadwadkar vs Pune Municipal Corporation through Municipal Commissioner

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

Mr. Felix Agnelo Remigius Lobo vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

News Item Titled "a Fire That Fails to Die Down" Appearing in the Hindu Dated 07.11.2025 vs

M/S Rama Natural Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas

M/S Rama Natural Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas

News Item Titled "800 Beegha Jungle Katane Se Roka to Forester Suspend, Dfo-Acf Ko Bachane Me Jute Afsar" Appearing in the Dainik Bhaskar Dated 20.11.2025 vs

Abhijeet Bansal vs State of Punjab

Abhijeet Bansal vs State of Punjab