Disposed

Shri Harish Mathurkar v. Collector Office of Collector Betul

NGT24 Nov 2025Original Application No. 158/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The NGT Bench in Bhopal disposed of an original application wherein the applicant alleged burning of a single mango tree on land sold by his ancestors. The court held the matter to be a personal dispute lacking evidence of environmental harm, involving only one dry tree. Consequently, the application was disposed of as no environmental issue was found.

What did the court decide?

The application was disposed of on the finding that it was a personal dispute with no evidence of environmental issue.

Shri Harish Mathurkar vs Collector Office of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item No.01

¶2

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

¶3

Original Application No.158/2025(CZ)

¶4

Shri Harish Mathurkar Applicant(s)

¶5

Vs.

¶6

Collector, Betul & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶7

Date of Hearing: 24.11.2025

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MR. SUDHIR KUMAR CHATURVEDI, EXPERT MEMBER

¶9

For Applicant (s): Mr. Dharamvir Sharma, Adv. with Mr. Yashdeep Singh Thakur, Adv. & Mr. Karitikey Bhatiya, Advocates

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The learned Counsel for the Applicant has submitted that the Respondent Nos.3 to 5 – Private Respondents, are related to each other and had purchased Khasra No.305/1, Gram-Bhaghora, Tehsil-Multai, District-Betul, years ago from the ancestors of the Applicant. The said land is agricultural. At the time of sale of the said land, it was agreed that the Applicant’s ancestors would have right over the fruits of the mango tree situated on the said Respondents’ agricultural land. It is this single tree of mango which is said to have been damaged by the Respondents by setting it on fire.

¶12

The learned Counsel for the Applicant states that the Respondents (Respondent No.3 - Shriram Lokhande) had submitted an undertaking to the effect that he would plant 15 mango trees in Khasra No.305/1 and they would be looked after by him. The copy of this undertaking is annexed as Annexure-A-3, wherein it is recorded that on 29.12.2022 villagers/panchgan verified that a verification was done at the site in

¶13

¶14

O.A. No.158/2025(CZ) Shri Harish Mathurkar Vs. Collector, Betul & Ors.

¶15

question on the complaint made by the Applicant and it was found that in Khasra No.305/1 area 0.755 hectares, one dried mango tree was found standing. As per the direction of Tehsildar, in that land the mango plants were planted and it was these plants which were undertaken to be maintained by the Respondent No.3.

¶16

Having drawn attention to this document, the learned Counsel for the Applicant says that this is enough evidence of destruction of one mango tree to have been done by the Respondents and that in lieu thereof, 15 (fifteen) mango plants were planted by them which too now have been destroyed.

¶17

We find it a case of personal dispute because it appears that the Applicant claims right over the mango tree which was situated in the Khasra number which his ancestors have sold to the Respondents but when the fruits of the said tree were not allowed to be enjoyed by the Respondents, this complaint has been lodged.

¶18

It is being said that cutting of tree has resulted in loss to environment but we find that single tree is said to have been cut but there is no evidence given thereof. The evidence which has been annexed in the form of Panchayatnama, indicates that there was one dry tree standing on the khasra number in question and not a burnt tree, to substantiate the claim of the Applicant. Therefore, there does not appear to be any environmental issue involved in this case. Therefore, we dispose of this application accordingly.

¶19

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶20

Sudhir Kumar Chaturvedi, EM

¶21

24^th November, 2025, Original Application No.158/2025(CZ) AK

¶22

¶23

O.A. No.158/2025(CZ) Shri Harish Mathurkar Vs. Collector, Betul & Ors.

Shri Harish Mathurkar v. Collector Office of Collector Betul

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Harish Mathurkar v. Collector Office of Collector Betul

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

Surab vs State of Rajasthan

Ajinkya Dilip Barne vs Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation

Vishal S. Rajemahadik vs Maharasthra Pollution Control Board

Dheeraj Tiwari vs Chhattishgarh Environment Conservation Board

Sameer Sharma vs Shakuntalam Landcraft Pvt. Ltd.

News Item Titled Raat Me Ped Kaat Jhadiyon Me Chipa Dete Hain Moka Milte Hi Thikane Laga Rahe Lakdi Jagah Jagah Dikhe Thunth Appearing in Dainik Bhaskar Dated 29TH August 2025 vs State of Madhya Pradesh

News Item Titled "22 Saal Se Band Company Mein Kaat Diye 1 Hazaar Se Jyada Ped Noida Mein Van Vibhag Ne Jabt Kiya Kate Pedo Se Bhara Truck" Appearing in Navbharat Times Dated 11.06.2024 vs

Rakesh Kaushal vs

Sunil Kumar Yadav vs State of Rajasthan

Surab vs State of Rajasthan

Dheeraj Tiwari vs Chhattishgarh Environment Conservation Board

News Item Titled Raat Me Ped Kaat Jhadiyon Me Chipa Dete Hain Moka Milte Hi Thikane Laga Rahe Lakdi Jagah Jagah Dikhe Thunth Appearing in Dainik Bhaskar Dated 29TH August 2025 vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Mukesh Gaikwad S/O Shri Shivaji Gaikwad vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change through Deputy Director General of Forests

Dr Amit Kumar vs Union of India