Disposed

Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti v. Union of India

NGT17 Jul 2025Original Application No. 223/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The NGT disposed of an application alleging mining license violations including blasting near houses, unapproved environmental clearance, and stream filling. A joint committee report found mines non-operational during inspection and could not scientifically prove cracks were caused by mining, though damages were reported by some residents.

What did the court decide?

Directing State PCB to monitor consent conditions and blasting; leaseholders to comply with rules; applicant and aggrieved party to approach civil court for compensation with scientific proof if crack

Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti vs Union of India — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item No. 01

¶2

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

¶3

Original Application No. 223/2024(CZ)

¶4

IN THE MATTER OF :

¶5

Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti Village, Shuklavas, District Kotputli-Behror Rajasthan

¶6

	Versus	Applicant(s)
1	Union Of India
	Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and
	Climate Change, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
	New Delhi, 110003	Respondent No. 01
2	State Expert Appraisal Committee, Rajasthan (SEIAA)
	Through Member Secretary
	Office, Arawali Bhawan,
	Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur, Rajasthan	Respondent No. 02
3	State Of Rajasthan
	Through Chief Secretary
	Government of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.	Respondent No. 03
4	Department of Mines and Geology, State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Mines and Petroleum,
	University Road, Ashok Nagar, Udaipur, Rajasthan	Respondent No. 04
5	Rajasthan State Pollution Control
	Board (RSPCB) Through its Member Secretary, 4, Jhalana Institutional Area,
	Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur, Rajasthan	Respondent No. 05

¶7

¶8

O.A. No. 223/2024(CZ) Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶9

6 Directorate General of Mines Safety (DGMS) Through the Director Ihamarkotra Main Road, Hiranmagri, Sector -6, Udaipur, Rajasthan. Respondent No. 06 7 Forest Department, State of Rajasthan Through Deputy Conservator of Forest Arawali Bhawan, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. Respondent No. 07 8 District Magistrate, Kotputli-Behror Nagar Parisad Building, Kotputli District Kotputli- Behror Respondent No. 08 9 M/S Sandeep Sharma Owner of ML No. 07/2000 S/o Bhavani Shankar Sharma R/o Jeengaur, Ward No. 17, Village Neem Ka Dhana, District Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan Respondent No. 09 10 M/S Jeengaur Mines and Minerals Owner of ML No. 13/2007 R/o- Ward No. 14, Ram Geeta Kunj , Ganeshwar, Tehsil- Neem Ka Thana, District- Sikar (Raj.) Respondent No. 10 COUNSELS FOR APPLICANT(S):

¶10

Mr. Rahul Choudhary, Adv. COUNSELS FOR RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

Mr. Om Shankar Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Thakuria, Adv. Mr. Shoeb Hasan Khan, Adv. (for Mr. Rishabh Kumar, Adv.) Mr. Lokendra Singh Kachhawa, Adv. Mr. Yadvendra Yadav, Adv.

¶12

CORAM:

¶13

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER

¶14

¶15

O.A. No. 223/2024(CZ)

¶16

Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶17

: 09.07.2025

¶18

: 17.07.2025

¶19

Date of completion of hearing and reserving of order Date of uploading of order on website

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The grievance of the applicant is mining activities under taken in close proximity to the human habitation at village Gulabgar and Jingaur Tehsil Paota, District Kotputli-Behror, Rajasthan and blasting without any authority of Director General of Mines and Safety by respondent o. 9 and 10 undertaking mining activities without valid environmental clearance causing impact to lives of the villagers and livestock and wildlife causing damage in violation of environmental rules.

¶22

It is further submitted that the mining leases No. 07/2000 and 13/2007 are adjacent plots which are located in the villages of Gulabgar and Jingaur, Tehsil Paota, District Kotputli- Behror, Rajasthan. The mining area consists of agricultural lands owned by the villagers of Jingaur and Gulabgar and a natural stream or ‘nala’ passes through both the mining leases. Outside the mine lease area but adjacent to the mine boundary is human habitation within 4.5m, a ‘talab’/ pond and Sanghan forest land wherein presence of wildlife. The mining activities undertaken in the ML No. 07/2000 and 13/2007 are in violation of the following :

¶23

a. The mining activities are operating without any valid environmental clearance as required by the OM dated 28.04.2023 issued by MoEF & CC which directs SEIAA to reappraise the EC’s granted by DEIAA on and between the period 15.01.2016 and 13.09.2018 and only thereafter the mining leases should operate.

¶24

¶25

O.A. No. 223/2024(CZ)

¶26

Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶27

b. The mines are located at a distance of 4.5m from the human habitation. Due to the uncontrollable and untimely blasting activities causing damages like formation of cracks in the walls, doors, and floors of the houses of the villagers. This fact was recorded in the inspection report dated 04.10.2022 undertaken by the Assistant Mining Engineer Kotputli.

¶28

c. The uncontrollable and untimely blasting activities is also causing severe disturbance to the wildlife and environment.

¶29

d. That the mine lease owners have illegally dumped mine debris and flattened the ‘Nala’ in Khara No. 84, which passes through ML No. 07/2000 and 13/2007. Such conversion is in violation of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1986 and Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

¶30

e. The mine lease owners illegally dumped mine debris in the ‘Talab’ or ‘Pond’ which lies outside and adjacent to the mine lease area. Failure to protect tanks, ponds is in violation of Hon’ble High Court order in Abdul Rahman v. State of Rajasthan WP(C) 1536/2003.

¶31

f. The mine lease owners illegally dumped mine debris on nearby forest land and also constructed a road/pathway inside the forest land to carry the mined minerals outside the mine lease area thereby violating the provisions of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980

¶32

g. The mining operations are operating in violation to the NOC Conditions obtained under S.21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.”

¶33

¶34

O.A. No. 223/2024(CZ)

¶35

Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶36

The mine lease owners have illegally dumped mined debris and converted the land part as Talab, illegal dumping of mined waste in the Talab or pond, illegally dumping mined debris in the nearby forestry and constructing road path ways in the forest land to carry mine leased minerals, uncontrolled and un timely blasting activities under taken in the mined lease, blasting activities undertaken in the mining lease area resulting disturbance to the wildlife and operating without any valid consent to operate.

¶37

After taking the cognizance of the matter the notices were issued to the respondents and a committee was constituted with direction to submit the factual and action taken report. The respondents have filed the reply. The members of the committee visited the site and submitted the report on which responses by the parties has been filed. Heard the argument and perused the record. Submission of the Learned Counsel for the applicant are that uncontrollable and untimely blasting undertaken in the mine-lease area has resulted in the formation of cracks in the walls of the houses of villagers of Gulabghar and Jingaur and thereby threatening the lives of the villagers.

¶38

Further submission of the Learned Counsel for the applicant are that the mining activities are undertaken without any valid environmental clearance as required by the office memorandum dated 28.04.2023 issued by the MoEF&CC. The facts are that the mine lease owners obtained the environmental clearance from the District Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA) and later on direction was issued that the EC must be re-evaluated and

¶39

¶40

O.A. No. 223/2024(CZ)

¶41

Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶42

reassessed by the SEIAA and no mining activities shall be permitted without the reprisal by the SEIAA

¶43

It is further argued that this Tribunal in Jayant Kumar v. Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change, 2022 SCC OnLine NGT 5366 in order dated 07.12.2022 noticed several mine leases were operating without re-appraised EC from the SEIAA, and therefore directed that only such mining leases may be continued which have been on reappraisal granted environmental clearance by SEIAA. The relevant portion of the order dated 07.12.2022 in Jayant Kumar v. Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change, 2022 SCC OnLine NGT 5366 is reiterated below:-

¶44

“Further, this Tribunal has observed that mining leases in which environmental clearance was granted by DEIAA in view of amendment notification dated 15.01.2016 are still continuing even after passing of order dated 13.09.2018 by this Tribunal in Satendra Pandey (supra) and issuance of OM dated 12.12.2018 by MoEF&CC without any re-appraisal by SEIAA and appropriate remedial action on the basis of such reappraisal. All such mining leases in which environmental clearance was granted by DEIAA need to be brought in consonance with the directions given by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar (supra) and order dated 13.09.2018 by this Tribunal in Satendra Pandey (supra) by re-appraisal by SEIAA and only such mining leases may be continued which have been on re-appraisal granted environmental clearance by SEIAA. MoEF&CC is, therefore, directed to

¶45

¶46

O.A. No. 223/2024(CZ)

¶47

Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶48

take appropriate steps for compliance in this regard by issuance of requisite directions in exercise of the statutory powers under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. For this purpose, MoEF&CC is directed to collect information regarding such mining leases in which environmental clearance was granted by DEIAA and the period of which has not yet expired and are still continuing in all the States and Union Territories and by issuing appropriate directions for compliance with directions given by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar (supra) and order dated 13.09.2018 passed by this Tribunal in Satendra Pandey (supra) by re-appraisal for grant of EC by SEIAA.”

¶49

Thereafter an Office Memorandum dated 28.04.2023 was issued by MoEF & CC in pursuant to the directions of this Tribunal in Jayant Kumar v. Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change case. The OM dated 28.04.2023 issued by the MoEF & CC clearly states that the mining leases which was granted EC on and between 15.01.2016 and 13.09.2018 is required to be re-appraised by the SEIAA and only such mining leases shall be operated. The relevant portion of the Office Memorandum dated 28.04.2023 is reproduced below:

¶50

“Subsequently, NGT vide its order dated 07.12.2022 in O.A No.142 of 2022 in the matter of Jayant Kumar v. Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change inter-ala observed that” mining leases in which environmental clearance was granted by DEIAA in view of amendment notification dated 15.01.2016 are still

¶51

¶52

O.A. No. 223/2024(CZ)

¶53

Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶54

continuing even after passing of order dated 13.09.2018 by this Tribunal in Satendra Pandey (supra) and issuance of OM dated 12.12.2018 by MoEF & CC Without any reappraisal by SEIAA and appropriate remedial action on the basis of such re-appraisal. All such mining leases in which environmental clearance was granted by DEIAA need to be brought in consonance with the directions given by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar (supra) and order dated 13.09.2018 by this Tribunal in Satendra Pandey (supra) by re-appraised by SEIAA and only such mining leases may be continued which have been on reappraisal granted environmental clearance by SEIAA. MoEF & CC is therefore, directed to take appropriate steps for compliance int his regard by issuance of requisite directions in exercise of the statutory powers under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 4. The matter has been examined in the Ministry and accordingly it has been decided that all valid ECs issued by DEIAA shall be reappraised through SEAC/SEIAA in compliance to the order of the Hon’ble NGT in O.A 142 of 2022. In view of above, it is hereby directed that all concerned SEACs shall re-appraise the ECs issued by DEIAAs between 15.01.2016 and 13.09.2018 (including both dates) and all fresh ECs in this regard shall be granted only by SEIAAs based on such appraisal. The exercise shall be completed within a time period of one year from the date of issue of this OM. DEIAAs shall transfer all such files where ECs have been granted to concerned SEIAA within a time period of one month from

¶55

¶56

O.A. No. 223/2024(CZ) Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶57

issue of this OM. The State Government may assess the existing workload of SEAC (s) and accordingly, send proposals for constitution of additional SEAC for a specified period to deal with such additional workload.”

¶58

That operating mining leases without valid environmental clearance is in complete disregard to the settled principle of law under the EIA Notification, 2006. That in MC Mehta v. Union of India (2004) 12 SCC 118 where the Hon’ble court has held :-

¶59

“We are unable to accept the contention that the notification dated 27^th January, 1994 would not apply to leases which come up for consideration for renewal after issue of the notification. The notification mandates that the mining operation shall not be undertaken in any part of India unless environmental clearance by the Central Government has been accorded. The clearance under the notification is valid for a period of five years. In none of the leases the requirement of notification was complied with either at the stage of initial grant of the mining lease or at the stage of renewal. Some of the leases were fresh leases granted after issue of the notification. Some were cases of renewal. No mining operation can commence without obtaining environmental impact assessment in terms of the notification”

¶60

The applicant has relied on the Map, Jamabandi, Khewat & Khatauni were in the Aadhar Samvat 2074-2077, it is recorded as Talai, and in plot no. 84, there is the entry of Gair Mumkin Nallah. The applicant has also relied on the information obtained under RTI

¶61

¶62

O.A. No. 223/2024(CZ)

¶63

Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶64

Act and submitted that there are cracks in the walls and further that the Director General of Mines and Safety has granted the permission on condition that no work shall be conducted beyond daylight hours at the mine and that in accordance with Regulation 109, red with clause no. 1.2, excavation within 45 meter distance from the structure not belonging to the owner shall be stopped immediately and overburden shall be dumped up to surface level in already excavated area in 45 meter distance from the surface structure not belonging to the owner in north side of the mine.

¶65

The consent condition contains certain directions including that the drill shall be operated with water injection system and that there should be regular water sprinkling and the overburden shall not be dumped in such a manner that it flows with water in the nearby tanks, reservoirs and ponds etc. condition no. 14 further stipulates that controlled blasting shall be practiced.

¶66

During the proceeding before this Tribunal a committee consisting the representative of the District Magistrate, Director General of Mines and the SEIAA was constituted with direction to submit the factual and action taken report and the committee has submitted the report as follows:-

¶67

“Background: –

¶68

1. The committee was informed relevant facts by concerning department which are summarized as below:-

¶69

a) ML No. 07/2000 by M/s Sandeep Sharma in an area measuring 4.960ha, Mineral- Quarts and

¶70

¶71

O.A. No. 223/2024(CZ)

¶72

Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶73

Feldspar mineral at village Gulabgar (Jingaur), Tehsil Paota, District Kotputli-Behror, Rajasthan.

¶74

b) ML No. 13/2007 by M/s Jeengaur Mines and Minerals in an area measuring 4.0335ha, MineralQuarts and Feldspar mineral at village Jingaur, Tehsil Paota, District Kotputli-Behror, Rajasthan.

¶75

c) Department of Mines & Geology has provided factual reports for the ML no 13/2007 and 7/2000.

¶76

श्री संदीप कुमार शमाा पुत्र श्री बी . एस . शमाा , निवासी ग्राम छापोली , तहसील उदयपुरवाटी , निला झुन्झूिु हाल निला िीमकाथािाकेपक्षमें रािस्वग्राम िीणगौर खसरा िम्बराि 18/1159, 79, 84, 87, 89, 91 व 121 मेंतथाआंनशकभागनििीभूनममेंहै।नििीखातेदारीभूनम में सहमनत लेकर खिि करिे का शपथ पत्र प्रस्ु त करिे के बाद नियमािुसार खिि पट्टा निदेशालय के आदेश क्रमांक निखाभू / कोट / सीसी -4/ प -1 (1) 7/2000/265 नदिांक 24.03.2004 से खिि पट्टा वास्ते खनिि - क्वाटाि , फैल्सपार , क्षेत्र 5000 हैक्टयर निकट ग्राम - गुलाबगढ , तहसील - कोटपूतली , निला - ियपुर हाल तहसील - पावटा व निला कोटपूतली - बहरोड़ में संनवदा पंिीयि की नतनथ से 30 वर्ा के नलए स्वीकृत नकया गया। निसकी संनवदा का निष्पादि नदिांक 29.05.2006 को एवं पंिीयि नदिांक 03.06.2006 को हुआ। इस प्रकार खिि पट्टा नदिांक 03.06.2006 से 30 वर्ा के नलए स्वीकृत होकर प्रभावशील हुआ। खिि पट्टा का स्वीकृत क्षेत्र में 5000 हैक्टयर में 0004 हैक्टयर का आंनशक अध्यपाण श्रीमाि अधीक्षण खनि अनभयन्ता, ियपुर के आदेश क्रमांक अखअ/िय/कोट/प्र/प-8/2000/ 460 नदिांक 01.04.2013 के द्वारा नदिांक 21.03.2013 से स्वीकृत

¶77

¶78

O.A. No. 223/2024(CZ)

¶79

Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶80

नकया गया। इस प्रकार खिि पट्टा क्षेत्र 4096 हैक्टेयर नदिांक 21.03.2013 से शेर् अवनध के नलए प्रभावी होकर, पूरक संनवदा का निष्पादि नदिांक 10.07.2013 को नकया िाकर िोटेरी से तस्दीक नदिांक 08.08.2013 को हुआ। भारत सरकार द्वारा िारी अनधसूचिा नदिांक 10.02.2015 से खििपट्टा में स्वीकृत खनिि-क्वाटाि व फैल्सपार को अप्रधाि खनिि घोनर्त नकये िािे से खििपट्टा अप्रधाि खनिि ररयायत नियमों के अध्यधीि प्रभावी हुआ, निसका पूरक संनवदा का निष्पादि नदिांक 22.02.2021 को होकर, िोटेरी से तस्दीक नदिांक 23.02.2021 को हुआ।

¶81

रािस्थाि अप्रधाि खनिि ररयायत नियमावली, 2017 के नियम 9 (2) के तहत् खिि पट्टा की अवनध वृद्धि स्वतः 50वर्ा होिे से अथाात् 03.06.2006 से 02.06.2056 तक के नलये बढाई गई। निसका पूरक संनवदा का निष्पादि नदिांक 22.020.2021 को होकर, िोटेरी से तस्दीक नदिांक 23.02.2021 को हुआ।

¶82

खिि पट्टा की रािस्थाि पयाावरण प्रदूर्ण मण्डल, अलवर के पत्र क्रमांक 4649 नदिांक 07.03.2022 से कन्सेन्ट टू ऑपरेटनदिांक 2800202027 तक वैद्य है। श्रीमाि अधीक्षण खनि अनभयन्ता, ियपुर के पत्र क्रमांक 459 नदिांक 27.05.2022 से अवनध 2021-22 से 2025-26 तक अिुमोनदत है। खिि पट्टा मेंखाि सुरक्षा महानिदेशालय , अिमेर क्षेत्र अिमेर के द्वारा उिके पत्र क्रमांक 267480 नदिांक 12.08.2024 सेखाि प्रबन्धक कीनियुद्धि केआदेश िारीनकयेहुये है।खािमेंनवस्फोटकसामग्रीहेतुअनधकृतव्यद्धिमैससाियसालासर एक्सप्लोनिव बेरीतहसील पावटा सेअिुबन्धनकया िाकर सप्लाईकी िा रहीहै।इस प्रकार सेखिि पट्टाक्षेत्रमेंक्ळडैकेआदेशािुसारही

¶83

¶84

O.A. No. 223/2024(CZ)

¶85

Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶86

खिि / ब्लाद्धटंग नकया िाता है। खिि पट्टा में रात्री काल में कोई खििकायािहींनकयािाताहै।

¶87

उपरोि स्वीकृत क्षेत्रकीरािस्वनवभाग द्वारा कीगईतरमीम केअिुसार खिि पट्टा क्षेत्ररािस्वग्राम िीणगौर केखसरा िम्बर 16, 17, 18/1159, 84, 85, 86, 87, 89, 91, 79, 80, 81, 82, 82/1211, 83, 115, 121 में है , निसमें से खसरा िम्बर 18/1159, 79, 84, 91, 121 शासकीयएवंशेर्नििीभूनमहै। उपरोि खिि पट्टा रािस्वग्राम िीणगौर केखसरा िम्बर 84 िोनक रािस्वररकॉडामेंगै . मु . िालादिाहै , केसंबंध मेंमौका द्धस्थनत अिुसार गै . मु . िाला िहींहै , निसकीपुनि खिि पट्टा कीस्वीकृनत वि मौका द्धस्थनत पर बिाई गई सीमांकि ररपोटा व नफल्डबुक नदिांक 05.06.2003 एवंअन्यमौकाररपोटानदिांक 25-8-2003 वसंशोनधत क्षेत्रकीपुिः मौका द्धस्थनत पर बिाईगईसीमांकि ररपोटाव नफल्डबुक नदिांक 20-1-2013 करतीहैं। नििमेंकहींभीिालेका उल्लेख िहीं है।साथहीक्षेत्रकीिीटीशीटिम्बर 541 / 2 केअिुसारभीखििपट्टा क्षेत्रमेंकोईिालाद्धस्थतिहींहै।खििपट्टाकेबाहरद्धस्थतमकािसेभी नियमािुसार 45 मीटर दूरीछोड़कर खिि कायानकया िाता रहा है। खििपट्टेके 45 मीटरपररनधमेंकोईभीतालाबयािोहड़िहींहै।

¶88

उपरोि स्वीकृत खिि पट्टाक्षेत्रवि भूनम रनहतहैएवंहालही मेंनदिांक 25.10.2024 कोसंयुि सवेकायासम्पन्नहुआ हैनिसमें वि नवभाग केसहायक वि संरक्षक , कोटपूतली , क्षेत्रीय वि अनधकारी , कोटपूतली , सवेयर वि नवभाग , एवंरािस्वनवभाग का हल्का पटवारी , तथा इस कायाालय के तकिीकी कमाचारी खनि कायादेशक - प्रथम व पट्टाधारीप्रनतनिनध उपद्धस्थत रहेहै , केअिुसार खिि पट्टा केनपलर से

¶89

¶90

O.A. No. 223/2024(CZ)

¶91

Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶92

निकटतमरनक्षतविखण्डगावडीकीविसीमासेलगभग 115 मीटर कीदूरीपरपायीगईहै।

¶93

खििपट्टाधारी िे ई . सी . की पालिा क्षेत्र में वृक्षारोपण कर पालिाररपोटाप्रस्ु त कीहैनिसकेअिुसारक्षेत्रस्वयंकीनििीखातेदार भूनम में दो बडी िसारी लगाईहुई नििमे लगभग 400 पेड िीनवत अवस्था में है। खििपट्टाधारी द्वाराखिि पट्टा से निकलिे वाले ओवरबडािहेतुखििपट्टाकेपासमेंद्धस्थतनििीखातेदारीभूनमनिसके खसरा िम्बराि 115, 83, 83/1212, 118, 119, 120, 122, 125 है , को अिुमोनदत माईनिग स्कीम के अिुसार ही ओवरबडाि एकनत्रत नकया िा रहा है। क्पेितपबि स्मअमस म्दअपतवदउमदि पउचंबिमेउमदि।ििीवतपिलश्रंपचितब्वससमबिवतंिमब्उचिे श्रंपचितके पत्र क्रमांक 3225 नदिांक 12.08.2016 से पयाावरण पूवोिुमनतप्राप्तकीहुईहैतथाखििपट्टाधारीिेक्म ् प।।द्वारािारीईसी केररअप्रेिलहेतूपररवेर्पोटालपरनदिांक 08.09.2024 कोआवेदि करनदयाहै

¶94

निदेशालय , खाि एवं भूनवज्ञाि नवभाग , रािस्थाि उदयपुर के आदेश क्रमांक निखाभू / कोट / सीसी -9/ प -1 (1) 13/2007/453 नदिांक 12-05-2008 सेश्रीकृष्णकुमारपुत्रश्रीसुरेशकुमारनिवासी - ियनसहपुर खेड़ा तहसील बावल निला रेवाडी ( हररयाणा ) के पक्ष में रािस्वग्रामिीणगौरकेआरािीखसरािम्बराि 85 ए 86 ए 87 ए 88 ए 89 ए 90 ए 91 ए 95 में खिि पट्टा वास्ते खनिि क्वाटाि , फैल्सपार , क्षेत्रफल 400335 हैक्टर , निकट ग्राम - िीणगौर , तहसील - कोटपूतली , निला - ियपुरहालतहसील - पावटा , निला - कोटपूतली - बहरोड़ ( रािस्थाि ) मेंस्वीकृतहुआ। निसकीसंनवदा निष्पादि नदिांक 07-06-2008 को

¶95

¶96

O.A. No. 223/2024(CZ)

¶97

Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶98

नकया िाकर उप पंिीयक , कोटपूतलीकेयहााँनदिांक 11-06-2008 कोपंिीबिहुआ , इस प्रकार सेखिि पट्टा नदिांक 11-06-2008 से 30 वर्ाकेनलएप्रभावमेंआया।

¶99

एम . एम . डी . आर . संर्ोधि अध्यादेर् , 2015 ( िो नदिांक 1201-2015 से प्रभाव मेंआया है ) की धारा 8 ए मेंनकए गए संर्ोधि अिुसारइस कायाालय केपत्रांक 237 नदिांक 27.02.2015 सेउि खिि पट्टे की अवनध 11-06-2008 से 10-06-2058 तक स्वतः बढायी तथा संयुि शासि सनचव , खाि ( ग्रुप -2) के पत्रांक प .14(7) खाि / ग्रुप -2/86- पाटा नदिांक 01 माचा 2015 से प्रदत्त नदर्ा निदेर्ो की अिुपालिा में इस पूरक संनवदा का निष्पादि नदिांक 03-032016 कोनकयािाकरिोटेरीसेतस्दीकहुआहै।

¶100

श्रीकृष्णकुमार ( खिि पट्टाधारी ) िेनदिांक 24-04-2017 को खिि पट्टा मैससािीणगौर माईन्सएण्डनमिरल्स , ग्राम वाडा िं 0 14, राम गीता कुंि गणेश्वर तहसील िीमकाथािा ख.प. निला सीकर निसमें पाटािर (1) श्री दीपक नसंघल पुत्र श्री धासीलाल नसंघल 45: साझेदार (2) श्रीमती नबमला देवी पुत्र श्री भगवाि सहाय अग्रवाल 45: साझेदार (3) श्री योगेश कुमार गुप्ता पुत्र श्री िरेन्द्र गुप्ता-10: साझेदार, निवासी-गणेश्वर तहसील िीमकाथािा निला सीकर (राि.) के पक्ष में हस्तािान्तरण करािे के नलए प्राथािा पत्र प्रस्ु करिे पर तथा आवेदि नियमािुसार होिे पर त श्रीमाि अनतररि निदेशक (खाि) ियपुर क्षेत्र ियपुर द्वारा आदेश क्रमांक अनिखा/िय/कोट/सीसी-िा/-13/2007/375 नदिांक 27.06.2017 से उि खिि पट्टा का हस्तान्तरण मैससा िीणगौर माईन्स एण्ड नमिरल्स, ग्राम वाडा िं0 14, राम गीता कुंि गणेश्वर तहसील िीमकाथािा निला सीकरके पक्ष में नकया गया निसका हस्तान्तरण

¶101

¶102

O.A. No. 223/2024(CZ)

¶103

Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶104

संनवदा निष्पादि नदिांक 20.07.2017 एवं पनियि नदिांक 28.07.2017 को हुआ। इस प्रकार उि खिि पट्टा शेर् अवनध के नलये मैससा िीणगौर माईन्स एण्ड नमिरल्स, ग्राम वाडा िं0 14, राम गीता कुंि गणेश्वर तहसील िीमकाथािा निला सीकर के पक्ष में हस्तान्तरण होकर प्रभावशील हुआ। खिि पट्टे की रािस्थाि पयाावरण प्रदूर्ण मण्डल, अलवर के पत्र क्रमांक 4747 नदिांक 1400702022 से कन्सेन्ट टू ऑपरेटनदिांक 3100502027 तक वैद्य है। क्पेितपबि स्मअमस

¶105

म्दअपतवदउमदि पउचंबि मेउमदि। ििीवतपिल श्रंपचित ब्वससमबिवतंिम ब्उचिे श्रंपचितके पत्र क्रमांक 1491 नदिांक 3000602016 से पयाावरण पूवोिुमनत प्राप्त की हुई है। खिि पट्टाधारी िे कम ् प।। द्वारा िारी ईसी के ररअप्रेिल हेतू पररवेर् पोटाल पर नदिांक 27.06.2024 को आवेदि कर नदया है। खिि पट्टा 13/2007 के अन्तगात मािवीय आवास से नियमािुसार 45 मीटर की दूरी छोड़कर खिि काया नकया गया है तथा वतामाि में खिि पट्टा में पूणातया खिि काया बन्द है।

¶106

खिि पट्टा का ख.िं. 84 िो नक रािस्व ररकॉडा में गै.मु. िाला दिा है के संबंध में मौका द्धस्थनत अिुसार गै.मु. िाला िहीं है, निसकी पुनि खिि पट्टा 13/2007 की स्वीकृनत वि मौका द्धस्थनत पर बिाई गई सीमांकि ररपोटा व नफल्डबुक नदिांक 24-5-2008करती हैं, नििमें कहीं भी िाले का उल्लेख िहीं है। स्वीकृत क्षेत्र की िीटी शीट िम्बर 54 12 के अिुसार भी खिि पट्टा क्षेत्र में कोई िाला द्धस्थत िहीं है।

¶107

d. As per the information provided by Directorate General of Mines and Safety, Ajmer Region-1, It is submitted that the Owner, Agent or Manager of Mining lease No.07/2000,

¶108

¶109

O.A. No. 223/2024(CZ)

¶110

Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶111

located near Village-Gulabgar(Jingaur), Tehsil-Paota, District-Kotputli-Behror (Earlier-Jaipur District), Rajasthan had obtained permission under Regulation 106(2)(b) of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961 to use of Heavy Earth Moving Machinery without deep hole blasting vide this Directorate's letter No.43078/NZ/Ajmer Region/Perm/2022/251714 dated 30.1.2023, which is valid up-to 29.01.2028. Structures of permanent nature, not belonging to the owner of Mine Lease No.07/2000, were located at about 5.0m distanced from the North direction of the mine boundary. Permission was granted without deep-hole blasting from this Directorate. The area within 45m distance from permanent building or structures of permanent nature, not belonging to the owner, was permitted as "No-Mining Zone", and area from 45m to 100m to permanent building or structures of permanent nature, not belonging to the owner, was permitted as "No blasting Zone" and rest of area was permitted to work without deep-hole blasting as shown on the Surface Plan, Ref.No. PLATE No.2, dated 03.10.2022. Authorisation under Regulation 34(6) of the Metalliferous Mines Regulation, 1961 to work as manager of the mine, was granted vide this Directorate's letter No. 430781/NWZ/Ajmer Region/1/2024/267480, dated 12.8.2024, which is valid-up to 07.8.2025. It is submitted that permission under Regulation 106(2)(b) of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961 was not obtained from this Directorate by owner, Agent & Manager of

¶112

¶113

O.A. No. 223/2024(CZ) Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶114

Mining Lease No. 13/2007 and manager was not appointed at the mine at present. However, authorisation under Regulation 34(6) of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961 was granted vide this Directorate's letter No. 430737/NZ/Ajmer Region/Perm/2021/435 dated 18.3.2021 which was expired on 17.3.2022, thereafter neither manager was appointed nor authorization was obtained issued from this Directorate.

¶115

On the above, a letter was issued from this Directorate vide Reference No.AJ/DMS-1/2024/2173 dated 05.09.2024 to suspend all mining operations till qualified manager is appointed for Management, control, supervision & direction of the mine.

¶116

e) Department of Forest has issued a letter vide dated 11.11.2024 for the mining lease no 07/2000 and 13/2007 which states that -

¶117

उि दोिों खिि पट्टों की भूनम वि भूनम िहीं है तथा वि

¶118

भूनम पर नकसी प्रकार का मलबा डाला हुआ िही पाया गया है।

¶119

वतामाि में उि दोिों खािों से निकलिे वाले मलबे को बाहर ले िािे हेतू वि भूनम का उपयोग िही नकया िा रहा है।

¶120

f) Moka report signed by Shri Sanjay Kumar, Tehsildar Paota and Shri Parmod Samriya, Patwari Dwarikpura has been submitted. Report states that –

¶121

¶122

O.A. No. 223/2024(CZ)

¶123

Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶124

रािस्व ग्राम िीणगौर का खसरा िम्बर 84 नकस्म गै०म० िाला दिा है। निसका रकबा 0.80 हैक्ट० रािस्व ररकाडा है। िो खसरा िम्बर 95 के समीप से शुरू होकर खिि पट्टा 07/2000 एवं 13/2007 से होता हुआ खसरा िम्बर 140 के पास तक रािस्व िक्षे में गै०मु०िाला दनर्ात है। खसरा संख्या 84 मौके पर िालेिुमा िहीं है। खिि पट्टा 13/2007 के लीि क्षेत्र में उि िाले का लगभग 0.15 हैक्ट० क्षेत्र तथा खिि पट्टा 07/2000 के लीि क्षेत्र में उि िाले का लगभग

¶125

0.30 हैक्ट० क्षेत्र आता है। खिि पट्टा 13/2007 के लीि क्षेत्र में अवद्धस्थत खसरा संख्या 84 के भाग पर ओवरबडाि की डद्धम्पंग िहीं की गई है। खिि पट्टा संख्या 07/2000 के लीि क्षेत्र में अवद्धस्थत खसरा सं. 84, 82, 85, 82/1211, 91 के भाग पर कई िगह ओवर बडाि डाला हुआ है।

¶126

खिि पट्टा 07/2000 एवं 13/2007 के आसपास कोई तालाब रािस्व ररकाडा में दिा िही है, ग्राम िीणगौर की रािस्व सीमा में ख.ि. 943, 104 नकस्म गै०म० िोहड़ दिा है निस पर नकसी प्रकार की ओवरबडाि की डद्धम्पंग िही की गयी है।

¶127

2. Inspection of Joint Committee:

¶128

Members of Joint Committee conducted discussions and accordingly, Joint Committee comprising the following members visited the site on dated 11.11.2024:-

¶129

1. Shri Kapil Kumar, Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Paota.

¶130

2. Shri Durga Shanker Salvi, Deputy Director of Mines Safety.

¶131

3. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, Supdt Scientific Officer, SEAC Rajasthan.

¶132

¶133

O.A. No. 223/2024(CZ)

¶134

Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶135

Besides Joint Committee members, the following officials were also present during the joint inspection:-

¶136

1) Shri Sanjay Kumar, Tehsildar, Paota

¶137

2) Ms Sonu Awasthi, Foreman, DMG

¶138

3) Shri Pramod Samriya, Patwari, Dwarikpura

¶139

Observation during inspection are summarized as

¶140

below:-

¶141

I. Both the Mines ML No. 07/2000 and ML No. 13/2007 were found non operational during the inspection. Further as per RAWANA GENERATION provided from the Department of Mines and Geology, the Mining lease ML No. 07/2000 is non operational since 09.6.2024 whereas Mining lease ML No. 13/2007 is non operational since 19.8.2024.

¶142

II. Mining lease representative of Mine ML No. 07/2000, Sh. Bhawani Shankar Sharma has submitted a detailed representation with reference to mining activity.

¶143

III. Mining lease representative of Mine ML No. 13/2007, Sh. Deepak Singhal has submitted a detailed representation with reference to mining activity.

¶144

IV. Some of residents complained to the committee that time to time blasting is being done by the lessee and vibrations have been felt by most

¶145

¶146

O.A. No. 223/2024(CZ)

¶147

Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶148

of the residents and house are at risk due to certain cracks whereas other residents has informed that they have no problems related to Cracks in the houses due to mining activity.

¶149

V. Joint committee visited house of Shri Hari Ram Gurjar S/o Ganpat located about 06 meter away from the Piller A of ML No 07/2000. Shri Hari Ram Gurjar stated that no cracks were observed in the house due to mining activity.

¶150

VI. Joint committee then visited house of Shri Chothmal Gurjar S/o Ganpat located about 40 meter away from the Piller A of ML No 07/2000. Shri Chothmal Gurjar stated that some cracks were observed in the house due to mining activity.

¶151

VII. Joint committee then visited house of Shri Chaju Ram Meena S/o Kana Ram located on the boundary line of Piller A to B1 of ML No 07/2000. Shri Chaju Ram Meena stated that cracks were observed in the house due to mining activity. House of Shri Chaju Ram Meena was located on Piller A to B1 of ML No 07/2000 and same has been mentioned in the 'Mauka Spot Report' dated 15.2.2022 of Mining department.

¶152

¶153

O.A. No. 223/2024(CZ)

¶154

Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶155

VIII. Joint committee then visited house of Shri Yaad Ram Gurjar S/o Ram Kumar Gurjar located near by ML no 13/2007. Shri Yaad Ram Gurjar stated that no cracks were observed in the house due to mining activity.

¶156

IX. Joint committee then visited house of Shri Nihalchand Meena S/o Shayar Ram Meena near by ML no 13/2007. Shri Nihalchand Meena stated that cracks were observed in the house due to mining activity.

¶157

X. Joint committee then visited house of Shri Ram Niwas Meena S/o Shayar Ram Meena near by ML no 13/2007. Shri Ram Niwas Meena stated that cracks were observed in the house due to mining activity.

¶158

XI. Joint committee then visited house of Shri Lal Chand Meena S/o Bakshi Ram Meena near by ML no 13/2007. Shri Lal Chand Meena stated that cracks were observed in the house due to mining activity.

¶159

XII. Joint committee then visited house of Shri Chanda Ram Meena S/o Ram Karan near by ML no 13/2007. Shri Chanda Ram Meena stated that cracks were observed in the house due to mining activity.

¶160

¶161

O.A. No. 223/2024(CZ)

¶162

Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶163

XIII. Joint committee then visited house of Shri Narsi Ram Meena S/o Ram Karan near by ML no 13/2007. Shri Narsi Ram Meena stated that cracks were observed in the house due to mining activity.

¶164

XIV. Joint committee then visited house of Shri Ram Karan Meena S/o Richpal. Shri Ram Karan Meena stated that cracks were observed in the house due to mining activity.

¶165

XV. Joint committee then visited house of Shri Mam Raj Meena. He stated that cracks were observed in the house due to mining activity.

¶166

XVI. Joint committee then visited house of Shri Mahendra Meena S/o Shyra Rm. Shri Mahendra Meena stated that cracks were observed in the house due to mining activity.

¶167

XVII. Joint committee then visited house of Shri Badri Prasad Meena S/o Dhanna Ram. Shri Indraj Meena stated that cracks were observed in the house due to mining activity.

¶168

XVIII. Lessee of Mine ML No. 13/2007 has constructed office at mining lease area. No cracks were observed in the office.

¶169

¶170

O.A. No. 223/2024(CZ)

¶171

Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶172

3. Conclusions:

¶173

On the basis of the provided information by concerned departments and other relevant information the following were concluded:-

¶174

a) As per provided information by both the mining lease holders, applications for reappraisal of Environment Clearance issued by DEIAA have been submitted on PARIVESH PORTAL.

¶175

b) During the time of inspection, mines were found non operational.

¶176

c) Joint committee observed cracks in some of the houses whereas in the some house cracks were not observed. It could not be concluded the scientific reasons of the cracks accurately without scientific/geological study.

¶177

d) As per report of Tahsildar and Patwari, in the proximity of both the mining leases a Nallah has been mentioned in the Revenue record whereas no Talab/ Pond has been mentioned in the Revenue Record.

¶178

e) As per report of Department of Forest both the mining lease are not located within the forest area and debris has not been dumped in the vacinit of forest land.

¶179

f) As per the provided information both the mining leases have valid CTO (issued from RSPCB).”

¶180

¶181

O.A. No. 223/2024(CZ)

¶182

Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶183

In light of the contention raised by the Learned Counsel for the applicant the conclusions drawn by the members of the joint committee are that the mining area was non-operational during the time of inspection. However, the required EC from the DEIAA was obtained and for environmental clearance by the competent authority SEIAA, the application has been uploaded on the Parivesh Portal and later on it was re-appraised by the competent authority. It is further found that cracks were not observed during the inspection and the matter requires scientific and geological study.

¶184

On the point of Nallah though it is recorded in the revenue records but the inspection carried out by the officers reveals that no talab/pond was found and further that the mining mills are not located within the forest area and debris have not been dumped in the vicinity of forest land. Both minings have violated CTO from the competent authority.

¶185

The mining department has submitted the report that in the lease area there is no Gair Mumkin Nallah, though it is recorded in the revenue records but at the spot it was not found. The Director General of Mines has authorized the project proponent vide authority letter dated 30.01.2023 giving permission for blasting and mining with certain conditions enumerated in the order itself.

¶186

The submission of the learned counsel for the project proponent/ respondents are that the some of the villagers including the applicant were regularly causing disturbance and interference for the reasons best known to them as narrated in the First Information Report itself and after repeated disturbances the project proponent has lodged the

¶187

¶188

O.A. No. 223/2024(CZ)

¶189

Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶190

first information report against the violators and the case is pending before the competent court.

¶191

It is further submitted that a civil case was filed by the project proponent before the Court of Civil Judge and the respondents were restrained by an interim order not to intervene in the peaceful mining of the project proponent.

¶192

The cause of the dispute arose from the encroachment on the mining area for which mining officer and engineer have made a measurement and vide order dated 20.09.2022 has reported to the Tehsildar-Paota, District-Jaipur that there are encroachments and the same is required to be removed.

¶193

In response to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 09 has submitted that in the year 2022 answering respondent during operation of mining lease faced threat and some of the local residents/ encroachers illegally demand money, in case of nonpayment of money they will not allow the answering respondent to operate his legitimate mine. The answering respondent left with no other option had to file an FIR No. 24/2022 dated 13.01.2022 with respect to threat and extortion of money.

¶194

That even after filing of the FIR the alleged local residents/encroachers did not stop from harassing the answering respondent during operation of the lease. Therefore, the answering respondent approached the Learned Civil Court and filed Application No. 04/2022, for seeking injunction. One of the claimant i.e. Chaujram has encroached within the mining lease of the answering respondent. This is evident from the Mauka Report dated 15.02.2022.

¶195

¶196

O.A. No. 223/2024(CZ)

¶197

Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶198

Further, the Assistant Mining Engineer, Kotputli vide letters dated 20.09.2022 and 04.08.2023 has requested the Tehsildar, Paota for removal of encroachment from the mining lease of the answering respondent. It is also submitted that answering respondent acting on humanity grounds granted 09 months time to the encroacher for removal of his encroachment from the mining lease and also agreed to provide financial assistance. In this regard, encroacher Chaju Ram had given an undertaking for removal of encroachment within 09 months. However, instead of removing the encroachment, approached this Tribunal for undue benefits.

¶199

It is further argued that it is clarified that majority of Mining Lease area falls under Government Land. Some portion of Lease area falls under private lands but most of it has already been purchased by the Lease Holders. It is clarified here that in case of bigger Mining Leases having area beyond 5 hectares, the lease can be allocated to the Lease Holder subject to filing an undertaking/ Affidavit that the Lease Holder would not carry out excavation over private lands without prior permission from the competent authority. In the instant case, the answering respondent has already furnished the affidavit before the Mining Department, thereafter, the lease was sanctioned in favor of the answering respondent and that no such Nallah or stream exists at the spot in question and this fact has been verified by the Joint Committee constituted by the Tribunal. It is only in the revenue records, there is a description of nallah but the revenue records are not reflecting the ground reality. It is significant to point out that before permitting mining over the lease in question, a proper demarcation report and field book is prepared. In the Demarcation Report of mining lease 7/2000 and in Field Book dated 05.06.2003

¶200

¶201

O.A. No. 223/2024(CZ)

¶202

Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶203

as well as in other Spot Inspection Report dated 25.08.2003 and amended Demarcation Report and Field Book dated 20.01.2013, there is no nala in existence physically.

¶204

It is further argued that as per the site inspection the nallah does not exist, similarly the so claimed nallah neither has any origin nor any end point i.e. merging into any water body at the end. Furthermore, at Point No. 1 in letter dated 25.04.2024 issued by Assistant Mining Engineer, Kotputli to Addl. Director (Mining), Jaipur this fact has been verified that there is no nalah existing at the spot in question. There is no Aabadi area adjacent to the Mining Leases and this fact can be confirmed from the Demarcation Report and Field Book annexed above.

¶205

It is pertinent to point out that one Shri Chhajuram S/o Kanaram Meena has illegally encroached in the Mining Lease area during Covid time, when no mining activities were undergoing. Against the said Encroachment, the Lease Holder filed a complaint before the Police Station as well as the Mining department, which carried out an inspection on 15.02.2022 and the encroachment by Shri Chhajuram was established. Towards removal of encroachment, the Mining Department, Kotputli wrote letters dated 20.09.2022 and 04.08.2023 to Tehsildar, Paota and a copy of the same was also forwarded to the Collector, ADM, SDM, Thana Incharge for removal of the encroachment, which is in process.

¶206

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that there is a natural stream or nala passing through ML No. 07/2000 and 13/2007. The natural stream is marked recorded in land records as "Gair Mumkin Nala" under Khasra No.84 (ANNEXURE A2) of the land records

¶207

¶208

O.A. No. 223/2024(CZ)

¶209

Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶210

published by the Department of Mines, Kotputli. It is submitted that, the Respondents by undertaking illegal and irresponsible mining activities have filled up the natural stream/Nala and flattened it with debris. The Natural Stream/Nala has dried up and is severely damaged due to mining operations. Furthermore, the mine lease owners used the mining debris to dump into the Nala resulting in making the Nala non-existent.

¶211

That flattening of natural drain is in violation of Section 24 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. It lays down the prohibition on use of stream and well for disposing polluting matter. The Section 24(1) states as follows:-

¶212

“24. Prohibition on use of stream or well for disposal of polluting matter, etc:--

¶213

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section,—

¶214

(a) no person shall knowingly cause or permit

¶215

any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter determined in accordance with such standards as may be laid down by the State Board to enter (whether directly or indirectly) into any 3 [stream or well or sewer or on land]; or

¶216

(b) no person shall knowingly cause or permit to enter into any stream any other matter which may tend, either directly or in combination with similar matters, to impede the proper flow of the water of the stream in a manner leading or likely to lead to a substantial aggravation of pollution due to other causes or of its consequences.”

¶217

¶218

O.A. No. 223/2024(CZ)

¶219

Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶220

Section 24 (1) states that no person shall knowingly cause or permit any poisonous, noxious, polluting matter, impeded the proper flow of water of stream in a manner leading or likely to lead to a substantial aggravation of pollution. In the present matter, the mine lease owners converted the natural stream by depositing mining debris on the bank and the bed of the stream resulting in damaging the entire nature of the ‘Nallah’ or Natural stream which is in violation of the Water Act, 1974.

¶221

Learnd counsel for the applicant has relied on Jitendra Singh Vs. MoEF&CC & Ors. (2020) 20 SCC 581 where Hon’ble the Supreme Court as follows :-

¶222

“22……..allowing destruction of existing water bodies and providing for replacements, exhibits a mechanical application of environmental protection. Although it might be possible to superficially replicate a waterbody elsewhere, however, there is no guarantee that the adverse effect of destroying the earlier one would be offset. Destroying the lake at Khasra No. 552 and 490, for example would kill the vegetation around it and would prevent the seepage of groundwater which would affect the already low water table in the area. The people living around the lake would be compelled to travel all the way to the alternative site, in this case allegedly almost 3km away. Many animals and marine organisms present in earlier site would perish, and would not resuscitate by merely filling a hole in water elsewhere.”

¶223

¶224

O.A. No. 223/2024(CZ)

¶225

Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶226

Submission of the applicant are that Courts have time and again emphasized on the need to project the water bodies and ponds. In the case of Abdul Rahman v. State of Rajasthan, 2004 SCC OnLine Raj 676 while dealing with the need to protect the tanks/ponds for proper and healthy environment to enable the people to enjoy a quality life which is the essence of right of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that the pond falls within the ambit of village commons and is used by the villagers as a source of drinking water for their livestock. That in Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 396 the Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that common lands had vested in the village communities for collective benefits and these lands were inalienable. The following were observed by the Hon’ble Court:-

¶227

“i. The protection of common rights of the villagers were so zealously protected that some legislation expressly mentioned that even the vesting of the property with the State did not mean that the common rights of villagers were lost by such vesting.

¶228

ii. What we have witnessed since Independence, however is that in large parts of the country this common village land has been grabbed by unscrupulous persons using muscle power, money power or political clout and in many States now there is not an inch of such land left for the common use of the people of the village , though it may exist on paper. People with power and pelf operating in villages all over India systematically encroached upon communal lands and put them to uses totally inconsistent

¶229

¶230

O.A. No. 223/2024(CZ)

¶231

Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶232

with their original character, for personal aggrandizement at the cost of the village community. This was done with active connivance of the State authorities and local powerful vested interest and gooondas. This Appeal is glaring example of this lamentable state of affairs.”

¶233

In response to the above contention the project

¶234

proponent/respondent has replied the issues as follows :-

¶235

i.“Existence of talab/ Pond near Lease Area

¶236

As per the provisions of MCR & MMRD Act, the leases are sanctioned for excavation of minerals and within 45 Meter area of Mining Leases, there is no Pond or Talab situated. This is evident from the findings of the joint committee report at page 6 of the report (running page 142) which read as under:-

¶237

" उपरोि खिि पट्टा रािस्वग्राम िीणगौर केखसरा िम्बर 84 िोनक रािस्वररकॉडा मेंगै . मु . िाला दिाहै , केसंबंध मेंमौका द्धस्थनत अिुसार गै . मु . िाला िहींहै , निसकीपुनि खिि पट्टा की स्वीकृनत वि मौका द्धस्थनत पर बिाई गई सीमांकि ररपोटा व नफल्डबुक नदिांक 05-6-2003 एवं अन्यमौका ररपोटा नदिांक 25-8-2003 व संशोनधत क्षेत्रकी पुिः मौका द्धस्थनत पर बिाई गई सीमांकि ररपोटा व नफल्डबुक नदिांक 20-1-2013 करती हैं। नििमेंकहीं भी िाले का उल्लेख िहींहै। साथ हीक्षेत्रकी िीटीशीट िम्बर 54A2 केअिुसार भीखिि पट्टा क्षेत्रमेंकोई िाला द्धस्थत िहीं है। खिि पट्टा के बाहर द्धस्थत मकाि से भी नियमािुसार 45 मीटरदूरी छोड़कर खिि काया नकया िाता रहा

¶238

¶239

O.A. No. 223/2024(CZ)

¶240

Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶241

है। खिि पट्टे के 45 मीटर पररनध में कोई भी तालाब या िोहड़ िहीं है। ”

¶242

ii. Operation without obtaining valid Environment Clearance:

¶243

In this regard, it is most respectfully submitted that the Answering Respondent No.9 has obtained Environment Clearance from DEIAA on 12.08.2016 and after the order of getting the Environment Clearance reappraised from SEIAA, the application for reappraisal has already been submitted before Rajasthan SEIAA on 30.05.2024 i.e. prior to filing of this original application.

¶244

iii. Cracks in the houses of nearby residents due to blasting:

¶245

First and foremost, it is clarified that no houses were situated when the mining lease was allocated to the Respondent No. 9 and therefore this issue regarding habitation and cracks does not find merits because of the non-retrospective implementation.

¶246

It is submitted that there is an encroachment at the north side over mining lease No. 7/2000 and the process of removal of the same is in process. The detailed description has already given above. As regards the Inspection Report of surveyor dated 04.10.2022 is concerned, there is no mentioning anywhere that due to excavation blasting, there are cracks arriving to the buildings. These cracks came on account of inferior quality of building material use. These minor blasting are being done from tractors safely under the supervision of Mines

¶247

¶248

O.A. No. 223/2024(CZ) Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶249

Foreman and educated staff appointed by DGMS and the said fact can be confirmed from the NGT Report dated 12.11.2024. The mining work and blasting are being done as per rules leaving 45 meter area and 100 meter area of lease. Thus, the allegation of cracks being arrived due to blasting is purely imaginary and it is presumed that just in order to distract the process of removal process of encroachment, a conspiracy is made. It is pertinent to point out that as per the Scientist's statements, in case there is vibration in caused due to the blasting at the mining lease, then the cracks are arrived from below to above, which is not in the instant case. Thus, such kind of cracks are nowhere in any of the buildings.

¶250

It is submitted that house of Hari Ram Gurjar which is 06 meter away from the mining lease does not have any cracks. Whereas, house of Chothmal Gurjar which is 40 meters away from mining lease is having cracks due to mining is completely a false submission. Further, Chaju Ram Meena has encroached over the mining area of the answering respondent, this fact is evident from various documents like undertaking given by Chaju Ram, findings of the Learned CJM Court in order dated 01.11.2022, Letters issued by AME, Kotputli to Tehsildar paota for removal of encroachment from the mining lease.

¶251

iv. Allegation regarding uncontrollable and untimely blasting causing disturbance to wildlife

¶252

environment:

¶253

¶254

O.A. No. 223/2024(CZ)

¶255

Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶256

As regards the question of uncontrollable and untimely blasting activities causing severe disturbance to the wildlife and environment is concerned, it is submitted that at the mining lease no. 7/2000, the blasting is being done under the supervision of authorized representative appointed by DGMS and there are Manager/Foreman & Mat appointed looking to their prescribed educational qualification and the blasting material is being purchased from the authorized supplier and till the blasting is not done, the qualified person of the supplier and vehicle stand on the site. After the blasting, the supplier remains available for getting the remaining material. Thus, the entire process of blasting done with systematic arrangement and as per rules and timing. Thus, neither the wildlife is affected from the blasting nor any adverse effect found on the environment. In this regard, observation made by the joint committee at page 6 (running page 129) of the joint committee report are as follows:-

¶257

" खिि पट्टामेंखािसुरक्षामहानिदेशालय , अिमेरक्षेत्रअिमेर के द्वारा उिकेपत्रक्रमांक 267480 नदिांक 12.08.2024 सेखाि प्रबन्धक की नियुद्धि के आदेश िारी नकये हुये है। खाि में नवस्फोटक सामग्री हेतु अनधकृत व्यद्धि मैससा िय सालासर एक्सप्लोनिव बेरीतहसील पावटा सेअिुबन्धनकया िाकर सप्लाई की िा रहीहै। इस प्रकार से खिि 9 पट्टा क्षेत्र में DGMS के आदेशािुसार हीखिि / ब्लाद्धटंग नकया िाता है। खिि पट्टा में रात्रीकालमेंकोईखििकायािहींनकयािाताहै। "

¶258

¶259

O.A. No. 223/2024(CZ)

¶260

Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶261

It is further argued that the leaseholder have already purchased a separate land for dumping of overburden and it is done in accordance with the law and there is no violation of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 or Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 and that the Forest Department vide letter dated 11.11.2024 has reported that the mining area is not within the forest land and there is no debris found on the forest land.

¶262

It is further argued that the that there is no forest adjacent to the mining lease and proper NOC has been issued by the Forest Department before allocation of mines. For the rest of the contentions with regard to violation of consent condition, it is replied that there are uses of water sprinklers during blasting and there are maintenance of greenery in terms of the consent conditions and two huge nurseries having more than 400 living trees are existing there and for providing the medical aid, the leaseholder has been providing free of cost treatment to more than 30,000 villagers through super specialty medical camps at Neem Ka Thana.

¶263

With regard to the mining area, consent condition and the EC, the notices were issued to the respondents including State PCB and by filing the reply, Learned Counsel for the State PCB has submitted that the mining leases under consideration, namely ML No. 07/2000 and ML No. 12/2007, hold valid Consent to Operate (CTO) granted by the Answering Respondent. The Consent to Operate issued in respect of ML No. 07/2000 is for the mining of Quartz and Feldspar up to a quantity of 35,000 TPA (Tonnes Per Annum) and remains valid until 28.02.2027. Similarly, the Consent to Operate issued in respect of ML No. 12/2007 is for mining of Quartz and Feldspar up to a quantity of 279,947 TPA and remains valid until 31.05.2027.

¶264

¶265

O.A. No. 223/2024(CZ)

¶266

Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶267

The submission of the Learned Counsel for the MoEF&CC are that the State Department of Mines and Geology is the Nodal Authority in the State for dealing with the allotment of mining leases under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act (MMDR Act) and is entrusted with the enforcement and regulation of mining operations in a State including illegal mining. Further, the State Government is empowered under Section 23 C of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957(MMDR Act) to make rules for prevention of illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals and that, the State Pollution Control Board is the Nodal Authority in the State for dealing with cases related to pollution or environment management coming under the purview of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Environment Protection Act 1986 and that procedures for drilling, charging, stemming and firing of short holes and use of explosives in Mines have been laid down in Metalliferous Mining Regulations (MMR 1961) under Mines Act, 1952. Permissions have to be taken from Director General of Mines Safety (DGMS) for blasting activities in Mines.

¶268

With reference to Jayant Kumar v. Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change case, the learned counsel for the further has appraised the Tribunal that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 3799-3800/2019 in the matter of Union of India Vs. Rajiv Suri, extended the timeline for the reappraisal/appraisal process to 31.03.2025. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 12.11.2024 directed as follows :-

¶269

¶270

O.A. No. 223/2024(CZ)

¶271

Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶272

“We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, we extend the time for completion of reappraisal by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authorities till 31.03.2025. This direction will apply in the cases where the Environment Clearance is valid, as mining activity can only continue during the period of validity of the EC.

¶273

There may be parties who have not applied to SEIAA for such re appraisal. They may do the same within a period of three weeks from today.

¶274

The State Governments will also ensure that SEIAA, where not constituted, are constituted within a period of six weeks from today...."

¶275

It is further submitted that vide office memorandum dated 26.11.2024, the MoEF&CC has extended the re-appraisal till 31.03.2025.

¶276

The submission of the learned counsel for the SEIAA are that M/s Krishna Kumar was granted EC by DEIAA for mineral masonary stone with M.L no. 13/2007 for an area of 4.0335 with production capacity 279947 TPA vide letter dated 30.05.2016. The mining lease was transferred from M/s Krishna Kumar to M/s Jeengaur Mines and that MoEF & CC issued OM dated 28.04.2023 in compliance of order dated 07.12.2022 in OA 142/2022 titled Jayant Kumar Vs Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change wherein it was directed to all the concerned SEAC's to reappraise the ECs issued by

¶277

¶278

O.A. No. 223/2024(CZ)

¶279

Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶280

DEIAA and all the fresh ECs in this regard shall be granted by SEIAA based on such appraisal. The exercise shall be completed in one year from the date of issuance of the OM i.e. till 27.04.2024.

¶281

Subsequently, the MoEF&CC issued OM dated 03.11.2023, inter-alia, clarified that the ECs granted by DEIAA which are valid as on date shall continue to be valid for one year from the date of issue of OM dated 28.4.2023 unless the validity of the EC granted by DEIAA has lapsed prior to 28.4.2024 or until SEIA has invalidated the EC granted by DEIAA after carrying out re-appraisal as outlined above, whichever is earlier. That M/s Jeengaur Mines and Minerals had applied for reappraisal of earlier EC issued by DEIAA on 26.06.2024 with proposal no. 483885 while M/s Sandeep Sharma had applied on 30.05.2024 with proposal no. 477489 and that SEIAA, Rajasthan has granted Environment Clearance to both M/s Jeengaur Mines and Minerals as well as M/s Sandeep Sharma on 13.02.2025.

¶282

In view of the above facts, both the mines have valid EC granted by the SEIAA which was re-appraised. Copy of the EC granted in favour of the project proponent has been filed with the reply.

¶283

The Learned Counsel for the applicant has moved objection on the point of existence of Nallah and submitted that if it is shown in the revenue records then it should be presumed to be Nallah but in reply thereof, the report of the Mining Department, Tehsildar and the Joint Committee Report shows that there is no existence of Nallah and it is for the executive authorities to allocate it. For simple presumptions that there are encroachments cannot be found to be proved unless there is actually existing Nallah which was not found by the Mining

¶284

¶285

O.A. No. 223/2024(CZ)

¶286

Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶287

Department or the Members of the Joint Committee. Thus, the point as raised by the Learned Counsel for the applicant are not tenable.

¶288

On second point with regard to violation of EC or operation of mining without re-appraisal by the SEIAA, the necessary directions have already been issued by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court and office memorandum has been issued and clarified by the MoEF&CC and according to that there are no violations.

¶289

The submission of the Learned Counsel for the respondent no.10 are that the present case is intended to achieve illegal gain as directed in the application and relied on the judgment dated 21.10.2022 in Civil Appeal No. 2407/2021 (The State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Uday Education and Welfare Trust) where it was observed that :-

¶290

“99. We find that before a litigant is permitted to knock

¶291

the doors of justice and seek orders which have far reaching effects of affecting the employment of thousands of persons, stopping investment in the State, prejudicing the interests of the farmers; the credentials and bonafides of the applicants must be tested. In the present case, there is scope to infer that the litigation could be at the behest of the existing WBIs who wanted to avoid competition and continue to get raw material at a cheaper rate. There is also scope to infer that it could be at the behest of the WBIs in the adjoining Yamuna Nagar district of Haryana where lakhs of tons of timber is exported from the State of Uttar Pradesh. There is scope to infer that it could be in the interest of middlemen who are engaged in exporting timber from

¶292

¶293

O.A. No. 223/2024(CZ)

¶294

Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶295

Uttar Pradesh to Haryana. We would, therefore, only request the learned NGT that, when credentials and bonafides of such litigants are seriously raised and when entertaining the grievance of such litigants, which is likely to adversely affect the rights of many, it should ensure the bonafides and credentials of such litigants.”

¶296

On the basis of that it is argued that in present case the unregistered organization has approached the Hon'ble Tribunal under the garb of environment damage and has sought claim for the individuals against whom the answering respondent had filed an FIR with respect to extortion of money and has also sought Injunction from the competent Court with respect to encroachment and nuisance in operation of mining lease.

¶297

Further submission of the respondent are that the immediate relative of some of the claimers have given their consent that they will not cause hurdle, nuisance in operation of the mining lease, on certain stipulations. Rest of the submissions are the same as narrated by the Learned Counsel for the respondent no. 09 on the ground that majority of mining leases are in the government land and that there is no Nallah or human habitation or there is no any encroachment or encroachment on the pond land and that blasting is done in accordance with the parameter laid down by the Director General of Mines and Safety and there are no cracks on the walls or the cracks are not direct effect of the blasting.

¶298

It is further argued that there are no proof whatsoever filed by the applicant that the answering respondent are dumping mine waste in the talab or pond which is adjacent to mine lease area are that the

¶299

¶300

O.A. No. 223/2024(CZ)

¶301

Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶302

mining lease is under the supervision of authorized representative appointed by DGMS and there are managers foremen and have been appointed looking to their prescribed educational qualification and the blasting material is being purchased from the authorized supplier until the blasting is not done, the qualified person of the supplier and vehicle stand on the site.

¶303

It is further argued that the leaseholders are duly complying the terms and conditions and there are no violation of Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 or Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

¶304

The submission of the Department of Mines and Geology and the State of Rajasthan are that the mining lease ML No. 07/2000 was granted in favour of Shri Sandeep Kumar Sharma for mineral Quartz and Feldspar over an area of 5.00 hectares (later revised to 4.96 hectares after partial surrender), situated near Village Gulabgarh, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur (now Tehsil Pawta, District KotputliBahror), vide order dated 24.03.2004. The lease was executed on 29.05.2006, registered on 03.06.2006, and is valid for a period of 30 years from the date of execution, automatically extended as per Rule 9(2) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017. Environmental Clearance (EC) was duly obtained from the District Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Jaipur vide Letter No. 3225 dated 12.08.2016, and Consent to Operate was granted by the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board vide letter dated 07.03.2022, valid up to 28.02.2027. The mining lease area does not include any forest land, and this fact has been confirmed through a joint survey conducted with the participation of the Forest

¶305

¶306

O.A. No. 223/2024(CZ)

¶307

Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶308

Department and Revenue authorities. The nearest boundary of the protected forest block is located at a distance of approximately 115 meters from the mining lease area, and no activity has been undertaken within forest land.

¶309

That the mining lease ML No. 13/2007 was initially granted in favour of Shri Krishna Kumar and subsequently transferred to M/s Jeengaur Mines & Minerals for mineral Quartz and Feldspar, over an area of 4.0335 hectares, near Village Jeengaur, District KotputliBehror, Rajasthan. The lease was executed on 07.06.2008 and is valid as per statutory extensions. Environmental Clearance was obtained from DEIAA Jaipur vide letter dated 30.06.2016, and Consent to Operate from RSPCB is valid up to 31.05.2027. Mining operations in this lease have been carried out in accordance with all statutory requirements, maintaining a distance of at least 45 meters from any human habitation, as required by law.

¶310

It is further submitted that the joint committee has found no violation and the mining is in operation in accordance with the environmental clearance issued by the competent authority and the concerned condition is issued by the State Pollution Control Board and that with respect to the allegations of dumping mine debris in water bodies and on forest land, the Forest Department has categorically reported that neither mining lease area falls within forest land nor has any debris been dumped on forest land. The Revenue Department has also confirmed that, as per records and demarcation, there is no pond or talab within or adjacent to the mining lease areas, and the existence of a nallah has not been substantiated on the ground or in the GT sheet. Overburden is

¶311

¶312

O.A. No. 223/2024(CZ)

¶313

Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶314

managed and deposited in nearby private land, strictly in accordance with the approved mining scheme.

¶315

Regarding the allegations of cracks and damage to houses due to blasting, the Joint Committee recorded statements from several residents, some of whom alleged cracks while others did not report any issues. Importantly, the committee has expressly stated that, in the absence of a detailed scientific or geological study, it is not possible to conclusively establish any causal link between mining operations and the occurrence of cracks in the structures.

¶316

That all complaints and representations have been promptly addressed, inspections and joint surveys regularly conducted, and necessary reports and compliance measures documented. Instances have emerged wherein complainants themselves were unauthorized occupants who encroached upon mining lease areas during the COVID-19 lockdown, subsequently filing complaints obstructing mining operations. Such encroachments have been verified officially through joint inspections, and relevant civil and criminal proceedings have been initiated, including FIR No. 24/2022 at Police Station Pragpura, with charge sheets duly filed against the accused. Additionally, Civil Suit No. 4/2022 filed by the leaseholder has resulted in interim orders restraining interference with lawful mining activities. The competent civil court specifically found no merit in allegations of damage to houses due to blasting, underscoring the unsubstantiated nature of the claims.

¶317

On the basis of above discussion and the report submitted by the Committee, Mining Department, the mining in question is being operated after obtaining the due permission from the competent

¶318

¶319

O.A. No. 223/2024(CZ)

¶320

Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶321

authority, environmental clearance has been issued and consent condition has been issued by the competent authority. The members of the committee visited the house and some of the residents complained that they have no problem related to cracks in houses and further, some of the members complained that there are cracks in the houses due to mining. The opinion of the members of the committee are that it could not be concluded without any scientific reasons that the cracks are direct effect of mining or blasting and it requires scientific and geological study to be done by the expert body, and for that purposes, the applicant and aggrieved may approach to the appropriate forum of civil court for reasonable compensation with scientific proof if, it is correct.

¶322

To verify the above facts, the learned counsel for the respondent has relied the report of the joint committee at Sr. No. XVIII that the lessee of mine ML 13/2007 has constructed office at mining lease area and there were no cracks observed in the office.

¶323

On the basis of the above, it was suggested that if there were no cracks in the office situated in the mining area, then how it can affect the other houses situated at some distance from the mining area. Since the violations have not been proved and the lease holders have valid EC and CTO from the competent authority and being operated in accordance with the parameters laid down by the Director General of Mines and Safety, in supervision of the competent staff deputed by the Director General of Mines and appointed in accordance with the rules, thus violations as alleged by the applicant are not found proved. Thus, no action is required on the part of the Tribunal.

¶324

¶325

O.A. No. 223/2024(CZ)

¶326

Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶327

However, we direct the State PCB to regularly monitor the consent conditions and blasting operations and to take remedial measures in case of any violation found after observation and visit. Lease holders are directed to strictly comply the consent conditions and rules and regulations and directions issued by the Director General of Mines and Safety and to operate the blasting in accordance with the parameters in supervision of competent officials having technical knowledge of the blasting, so that it may not affect the nearby residents.

¶328

With these observations, the Original Application No. 223/2024 stands disposed of.

¶329

Sheo Kumar Singh, JM

¶330

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶331

17^th July, 2025 OA No. 223/2024(CZ) PN

¶332

¶333

O.A. No. 223/2024(CZ)

¶334

Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khanan Grasth Sangharsh Samiti v. Union of India

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

Dr. Pyarelal V.V vs State of Kerala

Parthiban J vs 1. the District Collector

Kuldeep Singh vs State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary (Panchayati Raj)

Amit Jadon vs State of Rajasthan

News Item Titled High-Rise Construction Near Ambazari Lake Raises Concerns Amid Flood Worries Appearing in Nagpur Today Dated 21.05.2024 vs the State of Maharashtra through Nagpur Municipal Corporation through Its Director

Kisana Ram vs State of Rajasthan

Sudhansu Sekhar Patra & Ors. vs State of Odisha

Varun Gulati vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Kanahi Ram Patel vs Union of India

Devendra Chourasiya vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Kuldeep Singh vs State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary (Panchayati Raj)

Khatlapura Mandir Samiti vs Wetland Authority

Ajay Singh Kachawah vs the District Magistrate

Kisana Ram vs State of Rajasthan