Dismissed

Mahant Madhu Mangal Sharan Das Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh

NGT5 May 2025Original Application No. 1192/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal disposed of two original applications alleging illegal felling of 454 trees in the Taj Trapezium Zone. The Tribunal held that the issue was already adjudicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court via order dated 25.03.2025, which mandated penalties, restoration, and compensatory plantation. Consequently, the Tribunal found no case to issue further directions and disposed of bo

What did the court decide?

OAs 1191/2024 and 1192/2024 along with pending IAs 543/2024, 324/2025, and 323/2025 were disposed of by no order passed as the matter was already considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Mahant Madhu Mangal Sharan Das Shukla vs State of Uttar… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item Nos. 15 & 16 Court No. 1

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶3

Original Application No. 1191/2024 (I.A. Nos.543/2024, 324/2025 & 323/2025)

¶4

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

¶5

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER

¶6

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

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

¶7

¶8

ORDER

¶9

In these original applications, applicant has alleged felling of 454 trees at Dalmia Farms located on Chhatikara-Vrindavan Road, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh within the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ).

¶10

Allegation of the applicant is that illegal felling of trees has taken place in violation of provisions of the Act and order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶11

Tribunal had constituted a joint committee and had called for the report. Replies on behalf of respondents have also been filed.

¶12

Learned Counsel for respondents have pointed out that the same issue was raised before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in IA No.237739 & 237765/2024 filed in Writ Petition No. 13381/1984 in the matter of M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India & Ors. Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the issue and has issued the requisite directions by order dated 25.03.2025. Order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 25.03.2025 on the aforesaid IAs is as under:

¶13

“ΙΑ ΝΟ. 237739 AND 237765/2024 (APPLN. FOR IMPLEADMENT AND DIRECTIONS ON B/O RAM AUTAR)

¶14

REPORT NO.35/2024

¶15

14. Heard Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant - Shri Shiv Shankar Agarwal.

¶16

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.

¶17

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

18. We accept the recommendations in paragraph 14 of the Report No.35/2024 which read thus:.

¶21

“14. After examination of all documents and the information gathered during the site visit it is recommended that: a) A penalty of a minimum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One lakh only) per tree felled and removed without the prior permission of this Hon'ble Court shall be imposed on the land owner. Hence for 454 trees felled and removed without the prior permission of this Hon'ble Court a minimum penalty of Rs.4,54,00,000/- (Rs Four Crores Fifty-four lakh only) shall be imposed on the land owners. The amount shall be deposited with the Forest Department for taking up new plantations at suitable places in TTZ.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

d) An entry path to the extant private land has been constructed through the protected forest. Hence Forest Department shall

¶25

¶26

initiate action under the Forest Conservation Act 1980 for illegal breaking of land without prior permission of the Central Government.

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

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.

¶32

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.”

¶33

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

¶34

¶35

Shankar Agarwal with the directions of this Court in terms of the recommendations which are quoted above.

¶36

20. The Report Nos. 29/2024, 35/2024 and 4/2025 are disposed of on the above terms.

¶37

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.”

¶38

Since the issue involved in this OA has already been considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court and necessary orders have already been passed, therefore, no case is made out to issue any further directions in these original applications. OAs are accordingly disposed of.

¶39

Pending IAs are also disposed of.

¶40

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶41

Sudhir Agarwal, JM

¶42

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶43

May 05, 2025 Original Application No. 1191/2024 & Original Application No. 1192/2024 JG..

¶44

Mahant Madhu Mangal Sharan Das Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahant Madhu Mangal Sharan Das Shukla 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kumaresan Sooluran vs Tamilnadu State Coastal Zone Management Authority

1. Srikanta Kumar Pakal S/O- Sindhubas Pakal vs 1. State of Odisha through Chief Secretary Government of Odisha

Abhishek Dutt vs Delhi Jal Board

Dr Sanjay Kulshresthra vs Ministry of Road Transport and Highways

Tejasvi Minhas vs Public Works Division

Anil Kumar Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh

News Item Titled "Villagers Seek Halt on Illegal Road Construction Appearing in the Arunachal Times Dated 22.04.2025" vs

News Item "Unchecked Urbanisation Pushing Deepor Beel Into Environment Crisis: Experts Appearing in the Assam Tribune Dated 22.04.2025" vs

Abhishek Dutt vs Delhi Jal Board

Abhishek Dutt vs Delhi Jal Board

Hariyali Welfare Society vs Union of India

News Item Titled "Illegal Miners Attempt to Run Over Trainee IAS Officer at U.P-Uttarakhand Border" Appearing in the Hindustan Times Dated 26.09.2024 vs

Narendra Kumar Goswami vs Chief Secratory of Uttar Pradesh

Narendra Kumar Goswami vs Chief Secratory of Uttar Pradesh