Disposed

Sachin Kumar Sehgal v. State of Madhya Pradesh through Principal Secretary

NGT1 Aug 2025Original Application No. 13/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The NGT found that trees were systematically pruned to prevent damage to adjacent buildings without uprooting, observing no violation. While appreciating the applicant, the Tribunal directed authorities to obtain competent permission before cutting or damaging any trees.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Municipal Council/authorities to ensure no tree is cut or damaged without competent authority permission.

Sachin Kumar Sehgal vs State of Madhya Pradesh through… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item No.05

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CENTRAL ZONE BENCH, BHOPAL (Through Video Conferencing)

¶3

Original Application No.13/2025(CZ)

¶4

Sachin Kumar Sehgal Applicant (s)

¶5

Vs.

¶6

State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶7

Date of Hearing: 01.08.2025

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER

¶9

For Applicant (s): Ms. Meenakshi Patidar, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mehul Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Parul Bhadoria, Adv.

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The in-charge assistant of Udyan (Gardening and Park) Nagar Nigam Bhopal vide communication Annexure A/3 informed and addressed Addl. Commissioner, Udyan Nagar Nigam with the facts that on 10.11.2024 in Ward No. 48 the concerned Parshad called the employees of the Nagar Nigam for pruning the trees but in place of pruning only two trees several trees has been damaged and cut without any proper permission from the competent authority and without any application on that issue. It is further submitted that this was due to pressure practice by the person concerned.

¶12

¶13

O.A. No. 13/2025 (CZ)

¶14

Sachin Kumar Sehgal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors

¶15

The contention of the applicant are that by misusing the powers an authority the concerned Parshad of Ward No. 48 direct the aforesaid officials of the Nagar Nigam to aggressively to chop and cut down the trees situated at the boundary of plot no. E-7/D and in this way around 16 trees including many old age fully grown trees have been damaged and cut down. The matter was also highlighted in the newspapers.

¶16

The matter was taken up by this Tribunal and a committee consisting one representative from the Divisional Forest Officer, Bhopal and one representative from the Member Secretary, State Pollution Control Board was constituted with direction to submit the factual and action taken report. The members of the committee visited the site and submitted the report.

¶17

Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶18

The submission of the applicant is that

¶19

he holds the power of attorney of plot E7/D, Lala Rajpat Rai Colony, in front of Shahpura Masjid and it is alleged that some trees were prune down by the officers of the respondent no. 6 and there were certain connivance with the person residing there. The grievance of the applicant is that before cutting down the trees the respondent no. 6 did not inform the owner of the plant who has protected and nurtured those trees and respondent no. 7 chopped down that trees. The report submitted by the joint committee observed as follows :

¶20

i. The site is located at Lala Lajpat Nagar, Village Shahpura, District-Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. The

¶21

¶22

O.A. No. 13/2025 (CZ)

¶23

Sachin Kumar Sehgal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors

¶24

geographical location of the site is latitude 23° 15' 56.466'' N and longitude 77° 23' 21.354'' E.

¶25

ii. There was a multi storied building called Vivek Apartment on the East side of the mentioned above location and another residential colony called Mohini Aditi Arcade on the south side of the mentioned location.

¶26

iii. There is parking space and road space available in between the two buildings.

¶27

iv. There is a very thin strip of land having width of approx. 1 feet and length of approx. 40 feet available on the boundary line adjacent to the Vivek Apartment. The said area is a private land and not government land.

¶28

v. During inspection, on the said strip of land having small space, there were 3 full grown trees of around 10-14 feet and ornamental trees and shrubs were found planted. The full-grown trees are touching the wall of boundary of Vivek Apartment. There was a single row of plantation observed.

¶29

vi. There was no uprooting of the trees observed by the joint committee during the inspection.

¶30

The perusal of report reveals that it was pruning the trees according to rules for the reasons that the branches of the trees or adjacent to another house/building and were damaging the building. There are some shrubs and full-grown trees were touching the wall of boundary and thus it was simply systematically pruned down and there was no uprooting of trees observed by the members of the joint committee.

¶31

The perusal of the report reveals that there are no violations or cutting of the trees. It is highly appreciable that the applicant is a lover of the greenery and planation, thus, applicant may plant as many trees as possible on his own land and maintain it and develop it. Pruning of the trees or maintaining it so that it may not damage to the building of others or any civilians is within the domain of the Municipal

¶32

¶33

O.A. No. 13/2025 (CZ)

¶34

Sachin Kumar Sehgal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors

¶35

Corporation department concerned and they have to act according to rules.

¶36

However, we direct the Municipal Council/authorities that no tree will be cut down or damaged without due permission granted by the competent authority.

¶37

With these observations the O.A No. 13 of 2025 (CZ) stands

¶38

disposed of.

¶39

Sheo Kumar Singh, JM

¶40

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶41

1^st August, 2025 O.A. No. 13/2025(CZ) K

¶42

¶43

O.A. No. 13/2025 (CZ)

¶44

Sachin Kumar Sehgal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors

Sachin Kumar Sehgal v. State of Madhya Pradesh through Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Kumar Sehgal v. State of Madhya Pradesh through Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

News Item Titled Durgam Cheruvu Shut as Sewage and Waste Pollute Lake Appearing in the Deccan Chronicle Dated 30 09 2024 vs Telangana Pollution Control Board through Its Member Secretary

Banda Nagaraj Kumar vs Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation

Prakashbhai Premabhai Patel vs State of Gujarat through Gujarat Pollution Control Board

Chitra Manufacturers LLP vs State of Haryana

Vijaykumar Jethe vs the Manager Atul Stone Cruser

Santosh Shivnath Mote vs District Forest Officer Ahilyanagar Maharashtra

Maniram Saini & Ors. vs State of Rajasthan

Girija Prasad Patra vs State of Odisha

Sou Motu Action on the News Regarding Blast in the Fire Cracker Factory in Harda District of Mp on 6TH February 2024 vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Mukesh Kumar Lulla vs State of Madhya Pradesh through Chief Secretary

Mukesh Kumar Lulla vs State of Madhya Pradesh through Chief Secretary

Khajanchi Prasad vs Collector Katni

Daulat Ram S/O Shri Kuldeep Gena vs State of Rajasthan through District Collector Ajmer

Daulat Ram S/O Shri Kuldeep Gena vs State of Rajasthan through District Collector Ajmer