Dismissed

Ajinkya Dilip Barne v. Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation

NGT21 Nov 2025Original Application No. 138/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

National Green Tribunal dismissed an Original Application challenging the diversion and covering of a natural nala for residential construction. The court rejected the application at the stage of admission due to lack of evidence regarding illegal diversion, flooding risk, and because the Municipal Corporation had already granted permission to relocate the drain.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs. Application dismissed at the stage of admission.

Ajinkya Dilip Barne vs Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item No. 1

¶2

(Pune Bench)

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

[THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]

¶5

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.138 OF 2025 (WZ)

¶6

Ajinkya Dilip Barne ….. Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation & Ors. … Respondents

¶9

Date of hearing : 21.11.2025

¶10

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

¶11

Applicant : Applicant in person present through VC

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This Original Application has been filed with the prayers that respondent No.3 – M/s Sukhwani Chawala Construction be directed to restore the alignment of natural nala at Survey No.27, Thergaon. PimpriChinchwad, which has been shifted from its earlier location by the Project Proponent, an order of demolition of structures be passed regarding the construction made over the original nala and existing natural well and to restore the water-source to its natural state; the building permissions and consents granted by MPCB – respondent No.4 exceeding approved EC limits be quashed and direct forfeiture of developer/respondent No.3’s bank guarantee.

¶14

The submission of the applicant is that he is an environmentalist. According to him, a severe and continuing environmental damage is being

¶15

Page 1 of 4

¶16

caused in Survey No.27 of Thergaon, Pimpri-Chinchwad on account of diversion, covering and re-alignment of a natural storm water drain (nala) by respondent No.3 as it is constructing high-rise residential building over the natural water-source and existing open well. The said natural nala forms part of Thergaon-Kalewadi-Pimple Nilakh drainage system, which is evident from the official records of Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (PCMC).

¶17

At this stage, when we enquired from the applicant as to where is the said official document showing said natural nala to be a part of drainage system as mentioned above, he drew our attention to page 259 of the paperbook, which is site inspection report conducted by PCMC Drainage Department on 08.02.2022 (though we do not find the same to have been mentioned). A perusal of this document does not disclose that the natural nala is a part of above mentioned drainage system.

¶18

Further in the pleadings, it is mentioned that respondent No.3 diverted the said nala and constructed over the same, thereby obstructed natural flow,, which is likely to cause flooding, groundwater depletion and irreversible ecological imbalance in the surrounding urban area. Further it is mentioned that the respondent authorities have permitted unauthorized extraction of groundwater, establishment of Ready-Mix Concrete (RMC) plant and allowed construction activities without valid EC or adherence to the Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations (UDCPR). These activities are causing grave harm to the environment and pose a continuing threat to public health and ecology in the region. Therefore, the above mentioned prayers are made.

¶19

We, at the very outset, enquired from the applicant as to where is the law to the effect that the Project Proponent cannot divert the location of the

¶20

Page 2 of 4

¶21

nala within its own premises and where is the evidence that this kind of diversion is likely to result in flooding of the area, he could not show anything in that regard.

¶22

We have gone through the documents, which the applicant has attached with the memo of Original Application. In Form-I, annexed at page 84 of the paper-book, at point No.1.24, it is recorded in front of the information sought as “ Changes in water bodies or the land surface affecting drainage or run-off ? that “ Nala will be retained on the plot and will be channelized properly .” In Form-1A at page 83 of the paper-book, at point 1.5 to the question “Will the proposal involve alteration of natural drainage system ?, the answer given is “ Nala passing through site will be properly channelized ”.

¶23

The Environmental Clearance (EC) dated 16.01.2016, which has been annexed by the applicant, granted to respondent No.3 for proposed construction of total built-up area (TBUA) of 63,837.41 sq.mtrs, shows that it was granted by the SEIAA.

¶24

We also find on record at page 47 of the paper-book that respondent No.1 – PCMC granted permission to respondent No.3 to re-locate the drain within the same plot, subject to certain terms and conditions. The above document distinctly shows that the alleged diversion of nala has been done by respondent No.3 in accordance with the permission granted for its relocation by the PCMC – respondent No.1 and this permission, which was granted on 15.03.2022, has not been assailed by the applicant, who is appearing in person through VC today. Therefore, it cannot be held, at the very outset that the permission, which is validly granted by respondent No.1 – PCMC, without being assailed how the restoration of that site could be ordered.

¶25

Page 3 of 4

¶26

In view of above discussion, we do not find any force to admit this Original Application, which is liable to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself and it is accordingly dismissed.

¶27

No order as to costs.

¶28

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶29

Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee, EM

¶30

November 21, 2025 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.138 2025 (WZ) npj

¶31

Page 4 of 4

Ajinkya Dilip Barne v. Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajinkya Dilip Barne v. Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation

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

Dheeraj Tiwari vs Chhattishgarh Environment Conservation Board

News Item Titled Motia Talab Kinare Dump Kiya Ja Raha Medical Waste Appearing in Dainik Bhaskar Dated 16TH Sept 2025 vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Vishnu Mali vs the State of Rajasthan through Its Chief Secretary

Praveen Kumar Gautam vs State of Uttarakhand

Ravi Shankar and Ors. vs

Shri Harish Mathurkar vs Collector Office of Collector Betul

Council of Engineers through Its President Er Kapil Dev vs State of Punjab through the Principal Secretary of Local Government

Nirmla Sharma vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 10/2024 in Execution Application No. 5/2023 of Armand Cardozo Since Deceased through Lrs Jovek Cardozo vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Mrs Augusta Dsouza vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Samir Bapodra (Partner of Tapi Stone Quarry) vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 13/2025 in Original Application No. 40/2020 of Ganesh Borhade vs Union of India

Vishal S. Rajemahadik vs Maharasthra Pollution Control Board

Ganesh Suresh Borhade vs State of Maharashtra