Disposed

1. Jitendra Kumar Pradhan S/O Ram Chandra Pradhan Aged About 36 Years v. 1. State of Odisha through Chief Secretary Government of Odisha

NGT9 Jan 2025Original Application No. 26/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The NGT held that paying royalty does not excuse environmental damage caused by illegal mining without clearance. The court directed SEIAA to assess compensation, Forest Officer to initiate proceedings for tree cutting, and Tahasildar to recover the unpaid royalty balance.

What did the court decide?

Directed SEIAA to determine environmental compensation; directed Forest Officer to initiate proceedings against respondent; directed Tahasildar to recover balance royalty of Rs. 14,44,000.

1. Jitendra Kumar Pradhan S/O Ram Chandra Pradhan Aged… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item No.07

¶2

Court No.1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONE BENCH, KOLKATA

¶4

(THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING WITH HYBRID MODE)

¶5

Original Application No.26/2024/EZ

¶6

Jitendra Kumar Pradhan Applicant(s)

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Odisha & Ors.

¶9

Respondent(s)

¶10

Date of hearing: 09.01.2025

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. AMIT STHALEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. ARUN KUMAR VERMA, EXPERT MEMBER

¶12

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sankar Prasad Pani, Adv. a/w Mr. Ashutosh Padhy, Adv. (in Virtual Mode)

¶13

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sarbeswar Behera, AGA for R-1,2,5,6,7,9&10, State Respondents (in Virtual Mode), Mr. Dipanjan Ghosh, Advocate for R-3, Ms. Rashhmi Singhee, Adv. for R-4 (in Virtual Mode), Mr. Lalit Kumar Maharana, Adv. a/w Ms. Ruparekha Jena, Adv. for R-11 (in Virtual Mode)

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Mr. Sankar Prasad Pani, learned Counsel assisted by Mr. Ashutosh

¶16

Padhy, learned Counsel is present (in Virtual Mode) for the Applicant.

¶17

Affidavit dated 29.08.2024 has been filed by the Respondent No.11, Aditya Construction, Private Respondent; the same is taken on record.

¶18

Affidavit dated 13.12.2024 has been filed by the Respondent Nos.2 and 6, District Collector, Jharsuguda and Tahasildar, Jharsuguda respectively; the same is taken on record.

¶19

¶20

Affidavit dated 18.12.2024 has been filed by the Respondent No.5, Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Brajrajnagar, Dist.-Jharsuguda; the same is taken on record.

¶21

Mr. Sarbeswar Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate is present (in Virtual Mode) on behalf of the State Respondents, Government of Odisha.

¶22

( Final order of this case will be uploaded in NGT website by separate sheets of paper ).

¶23

.....................................
B. Amit Sthalekar, JM
…..........................................
Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, EM
January 09, 2025,
Original Application No.26/2024/EZ
OM

Item No.07

Court No.1

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONE BENCH, KOLKATA

¶28

(THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING WITH HYBRID MODE)

¶29

Original Application No.26/2024/EZ

¶30

IN THE MATTER OF:

¶31

Jitendra Kumar Pradhan, S/o Ram Chandra Pradhan, Aged about 36 years, R/o- R Katapali, P.O.- R Kudopali, P.S.- Brajarajnagar, Dist.-Jharsuguda.

¶32

……….Applicant(s)
Versus
1. State of Odisha,
Through Chief Secretary,
Government of Odisha,
Lokaseba Bhawan,
P.O.-Bhubaneswar,
Dist.-Khurdha,
PIN-751002,

¶33

District Collector, Jharsuguda,
Office of the District Magistrate and Collector,
Jharsuguda, Odisha
PIN-768204,

¶34

3. Member Secretary, Odisha State Pollution Control Board, A/118, Unit-VII, Nilakantha Nagar, Bhubaneswar – 751012,

¶35

4. Member Secretary,

¶36

State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), 5RF-2/1, Acharya Vihar, Unit - IX, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, PIN-751022,

¶37

5. Superintendent of Police, Jharsuguda, Office of the District Police Office, P.O.-Jharsuguda, Dist.-Jharsuguda, PIN-768204,

¶38

6. Tahasildar, Jharsuguda, P.O.-Jharsuguda, Dist.-Jharsuguda, Odisha, PIN-768204,

¶39

¶40

7. Divisional Forest Officer-Jharsuguda, Office of the Divisional Forest Officer, P.O.-Badmal, KM Road, Jharsuguda, PIN-768202,

¶41

8. Deputy Director General of Forests (C), Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Integrated Regional Office, A/3, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswaar – 751023,

¶42

…(Deleted vide order dated 19.03.2024)

¶43

9. Principal Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management, Government of Odisha, Lokaseva Bhawan, Bhubaneswar, PIN-751001,

¶44

10. Director of Mines and Geology, Bhubigyan Bhawan, Bhubaneswar, Khordha, PIN-751001

¶45

Aditya Construction,
Represented by Managing Director,
Plot No. 496/3799, Unit No. 2, Hariom Bihar,
Ward no. 17, Brajrajnagar,
Jharsuguda, Odisha,
PIN-768126,
………..Respondent(s)

¶46

Date of hearing: 09.01.2025 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. AMIT STHALEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. ARUN KUMAR VERMA, EXPERT MEMBER

¶47

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sankar Prasad Pani, Adv. a/w

¶48

Mr. Ashutosh Padhy, Adv. (in Virtual Mode)

¶49

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sarbeswar Behera, AGA for R-1,2,5,6,7,9&10, State Respondents (in Virtual Mode), Mr. Dipanjan Ghosh, Advocate for R-3, Ms. Rashhmi Singhee, Adv. for R-4 (in Virtual Mode), Mr. Lalit Kumar Maharana, Advocate a/w Ms. Ruparekha Jena, Adv. for R-11, (in Virtual Mode)

¶50

ORDER

¶51

This Original Application has been filed by the Applicant, alleging that the Respondent No.11, Aditya Construction, is an infrastructure company engaged in various construction works and is extracting earth/morrum from various places in Jharsuguda

¶52

¶53

District including Khata No.616, Plot Nos.85, 126, 2018/5228 and Khata No.618, Plot No.2017, 81. It is stated that the Respondent No.11 has illegally lifted/extracted about 56,100 cum of morrum in Jharsuguda District. It is further stated that illegal morrum mining is being carried on in Revenue Forest land for which trees have been felled by the said Respondent.

¶54

The allegation further is that a newspaper article was published in the local Odia newspaper ‘Prameya’ on 31.10.2022, 01.11.2023 and 03.11.2022, about the illegal mining.

¶55

At the time of admission, the Tribunal constituted a Fact Finding Committee comprising of the following Members:-

¶56

(i) Senior Scientist, Odisha State Pollution Control Board, (ii) Divisional Forest Officer, Jharsuguda, or his senior representative,

¶57

(iii) Director of Mines and Geology, Bhubaneswar, Khurdha, or his senior representative, and

¶58

(iv) District Collector, Jharsuguda, or his representative not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate,

¶59

The Committee was directed to inspect the site in question and submit its Report with regard to the allegations made in the Original Application.

¶60

Affidavit dated 19.03.2024 has been filed by Tahasildar, Jharsuguda, on behalf of the Respondent Nos.2&6, stating therein that the Contractor, Respondent No.11, has extracted morrum unauthorizedly from the land schedule given in para 3 of the affidavit which reads as under:-

¶61

*Mouza*	*Khata*	*Plot No.*	*Kisam*	*Area*	*Morrum*
	*No.*				*excavated*
		85	Gochar	Ac. 0.257

¶62

¶63

					56000
Brajrajnagar					Cum.
TU No.1
	616	126	Gochar	Ac. 1.287
		2018/	Bad	Ac. 0.828
		5229	Jungle
		2017	Patita	Ac. .0630
	618	81	Nala	Ac. 0.472

¶64

In the affidavit, it is further stated that one Miscellaneous Sairat Case No.37/2022-23 has also been instituted and royalty/penalty has been imposed against the Respondent No.11 for unauthorized excavation of morrum. It is stated that a demand notice has also been issued by the office of the Respondent No.6 vide letters dated 20.08.2022 and 02.11.2022.

¶65

It is further stated that the Respondent No.11 has paid royalty, penalty and interest which is outlined in a chart given in para 5 of the affidavit, which reads as under:-

¶66

Assessment made.

¶67

*Item*	*Assessment*
Royalty	Rs.22,44,000.00
Penalty	Rs.5,00,000.00
Interest	Rs.78,000.00
_G. Total:- _	Rs.27,44,000.00

¶68

Payment made.

¶69

*Item*	*Amount paid*	*MR Number and* *date.*
Royalty, Penalty & Interest	Rs.13,78,000.00	MR No.104349 dt. 16.03.2023 and MR No.104559 dt. 18.10.2023
Balance	Rs.14,44,000.00

¶70

The Divisional Forest Officer, Jharsuguda, Respondent No.7, in its has affidavit dated 14.03.2024 has referred to the Joint Enquiry

¶71

¶72

¶73

Report of the Fact Finding Committee and it is stated that no excavation activities were observed over Plot No.85 and Plot No.126 of Khata No.616 (Rakhit) which were found to be vacant and barren whereas Plot No.2018/5228 is not found in Khata No.616 (Rakhit), however, a road is found passing through the Plot No.2018/5229 (Bad Jungle-not enlisted) of Khata No.616 (Rakhit) having tree growth which is adjacent to Plot No.2017 (Kissam-Patita) of Khata No.618 (Anabadi) of the alleged site. It is also stated that excavation activities were observed over an area of 0.91 hectares measuring about 4 meter depth having 56,100 cum of morrum in Plot No.2017 of Khata No.618 (Anabadi) whereas no excavation of earth/morrum was noticed over Plot No.81 of Khata No.618 (Anabadi). Along with the affidavit of the Divisional Forest Officer, Jharsuguda, Joint Committee Enquiry Report has been filed as Annexure-A/7, which reads as under:-

¶74

“Joint Committee enquiry report with regards to the direction of Hon’ble NGT order dated:-05.02.2024 in OA No.26/2024/EZ-Jitendera Kumar Pradhan Vs State of

¶75

Odisha & Ors.

¶76

As per the direction of the Hon’ble NGT order dated 05.02.2024 in OA No.26/2024/EZ-Jitendra Kumar Pradhan Vs. State of Odisha & Ors. A committee has been constituted comprising of District Collector, Jharsuguda, or his representative of not below the rank of Addl. District Magistrate, Senior Scientist, SPCB, Odisha, Director of Mines and Geology, Bhubaneswar, Khurda, or his senior representative and Divisional Forest Officer, Jharsuguda or his senior representative. Thye were directed to inspect the site in question and submit its report with regards to allegations made.

¶77

In this regard, a field enquiry was conducted on 01.03.2024 in and around the alleged site. The following members of Joint Committee were present during the field visit:-

¶78

¶79

1. Sri Brajabandhu Bhoi, O.A.S. (SAG), Additional District Magistrate (Gen), Jharsuguda,

¶80

2. Smt. A. Ekka, Deputy Environment Scientist, SPCB, Odisha, Jharsuguda,

¶81

3. Sri Balaji Dungdung, Assistant Conservator of Forests (ACF), Jharsuguda,

¶82

In addition to the above committee members, the following representatives and villagers were also present during the site

¶83

visit:-

¶84

1. Sri Kaushik Meher, Addl. Tahasildar, Jharsuguda,

¶85

2. Smt. Rishna Jamdaila, Forest Ranger (Brajrajnagar Range)

¶86

3. Sri Prasanta Bag, Forester Rajpur,

¶87

4. Smt. Haripriya Bhoi, Forester Ib valley,

¶88

5. Smt. Reema Patel, Forest Guard,

¶89

6. Sri Khageswar Patel, R.I. Brajrajnagar,

¶90

7. Sri Prakash Kumar Naik, Amin

¶91

Observations :-

¶92

The alleged sites as mentioned in the petition was visited by the Committee. No mining activity/excavation work was in progress at allegation site during the joint visit. However, excavation morrum had been done at only one plot. The status of the sites are as follows:-

¶93

*Mouza*	*Khata* No	*Plot No*	*Area*	*Kisam*	*Status*
Brajrajnagar	616	85	0.257	Gochar	No excavation
Town Unit	(Rakhit)				activity found
No.1		126	1.287	Gochar	No excavation activity found
		2018/5229 (2018/5228	0.828	Bada Jungle	No excavation activity found
		does not exist)			(However, a road is found passing through the plot)
	618 (Anabadi)	2017	0.630	Patit	Excavation activity observed
		81	0.472	Nala	No excavation activity found

¶94

¶95

The lands of plot no.85 and 126 were found to be vacant and barren whereas plot no.2018/5228 is not found in Khata No.616 (Rakhit) but in plot no.2018/5229 (Bada Jungle) of Khata No.616 (Rakhit) some Chakunda trees growth were found which was adjacent to plot no.2017 (patit kisam) of khata no.618 (Anabadi). There was very narrow flow of water at plot no.81.

¶96

However, excavation of morrum was found at plot no.2017 of Khata no.618 (Anabadi) over an area of 0.91 ha, about 4 mtr depth and 56100 cum of morrum has been extracted. The RI report and drone survey report is attached for necessary reference.

¶97

For excavation of Morrum, the project proponent has not obtained Environment Clearance from SEIAA, Bhubaneswar, and valid Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate from SPCB, Odisha.

¶98

Recommendation :-

¶99

M/s Aditya Construction may be directed to develop plantation on the above plots for damaging the natural vegetation without the permission of the competent authority.

¶100

It may be directed to obtain required permissions from the concerned authority for excavation of soil and morrum.”

¶101

The Superintendent of Police, Jharsuguda, Respondent No.5, has filed affidavit dated 15.03.2024 stating that no written complaint has been received either from the Government Administration or from any other private agency and hence no case has been

¶102

instituted in this regard.

¶103

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Odisha, Respondent No.4, in its affidavit dated 16.03.2024 has categorically stated that it has not issued any Environmental Clearance in favour of Aaditya Construction, Respondent No.11 herein, for extraction of earth/morrum from any place in

¶104

¶105

Jharsuguda or any other District of Odisha. It is stated that Environmental Clearance is mandatory for mining of minor mineral like – morrum and earth material, sand, stone etc. as per EIA Notification, 2006, as amended from time to time.

¶106

The Tahasildar, Jharsuduga, has filed further affidavit dated 13.12.2024 on behalf of the Respondent Nos.2&6, stating therein that the Respondent No.11, Contractor, was issued request letter dated 30.08.2024 followed by reminder dated 19.11.2024 to comply with the recommendations made by the Joint Committee to develop plantation on the alleged site and to restore the damaged environment, but till date nothing has been done by the Respondent No.11.

¶107

¶108

The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Brajrajnagar, Jharsuguda, Respondent No.5, in its affidavit dated 18.12.2024 has categorically stated that illegal mining is ongoing by cutting big trees from Revenue Forest land but no action has been taken by the District Administration or the Divisional Forest Officer, Jharsuguda, despite repeated complaints against the mining by the Respondent No.11. It is stated that all that has been done is that the Tahasildar has collected royalty and penalty but no deterrent action like – criminal prosecution, has been taken to prevent further illegal mining. It is further stated that since no report has been received from any of the Government officials or any local inhabitants, no case has been registered in Brajrajnagar Police Station regarding illegal lifting of Moorum/Murrum (weathered laterite), Stone, Sand and Soil (Minor Minerals).

¶109

The Respondent No.11, Aditya Construction, has filed affidavit dated 29.08.2024, denying the allegations made in the Original

¶110

¶111

Application, also denying that it has illegally lifted or extracted around 56,100 cum of morrum. However, it is stated that the said Respondent has deposited royalty along with penalty before the authority in terms of Section 51 of the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016.

¶112

However, in para 19 of the affidavit, there is a categorical averment and admission of the Respondent No.11 that during excavation inadvertently excess earth was excavated for which the Private Respondent had already paid royalty as well as penalty as per the OMMC Rules. Para 19 of the affidavit read as under:-

¶113

“19. That the deponent further humbly submitted that the private respondent i.e. Aditya Construction has not violated any Govt. Guidelines or rules as alleged by the applicant. During excavation work, inadvertently excess earth was excavated for which, the private respondent had already paid royalty as well as penalty as per the OMMC Rules. ”

¶114

¶115

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the documents on record.

¶116

The allegation of the Applicant is that the Respondent No.11 is extracting earth/morrum from various places, already mentioned hereinabove, and has illegally lifted/extracted 56,100 cum of morrum in Jharsuguda District. The Tahasildar, Jharsuguda, has also confirmed that the Respondent No.11 has illegally excavated morrum and Miscellaneous Sairat Case No.37/2022-23 has also been instituted against him and royalty/penalty has been imposed; the details of the land from which excavation has been made has been disclosed in the affidavit of the Tahasildar. It is also stated that royalty, penalty and interest has been assessed at total Rs.27,44,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs Forty Four Thousand

¶117

¶118

only), out of which the Respondent No.11 has paid Rs.13,78,000/(Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Seventy Eight Thousand only) and the remaining balance amount is Rs.14,44,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Forty Four Thousand only).

¶119

The Respondent No.11 in his affidavit has admitted that during excavation inadvertently excess earth was excavated for which he has already paid royalty as well as penalty as per the OMMC Rules, 2016.

¶120

However, in our opinion, mere payment of royalty and penalty for earth/morrum illegally excavated does not absolve the Respondent No.11 from compensating the damage caused to the environment and the Respondent No.11 has nowhere in his affidavit stated that he was in possession of valid Environmental Clearance issued by the SEIAA, Odisha. In fact, the categorical stand of the SEIAA, Odisha, in its affidavit is that no Environmental Clearance was issued to the Respondent No.11 for the site in question or any other place in District-Jharsuguda or any other district in Odisha. This confirms that the excavation carried out by the Respondent No.11 is absolutely illegal and in violation of environmental norms and the EIA Notification, 2006, and, therefore, the Respondent No.11 is liable for payment of environmental compensation to be computed by the SEIAA, Odisha.

¶121

The categorical stand of the Superintendent of Police, Jharsuguda, as well as the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Brajrajnagar, Jharsuguda, is that no complaint has been filed either by the Government officials or by any private individual, therefore, no criminal case could be instituted against the Respondent No.11. This only shows the apathy on the part of the Government officials

¶122

¶123

to look the other way when a party is acting in brazen violation of environmental laws and EIA Notification, 2006. The conduct of the State Administration cannot be condoned in not taking appropriate action against the Respondent No.11 for violation of environmental norms.

¶124

We, therefore, dispose of the present Original Application with a direction to the SEIAA, Odisha, Respondent No.4, to determine environmental compensation against the Respondent No.11, Aditya Construction, for violation of environmental norms, after giving him an opportunity of being heard, and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months.

¶125

¶126

We also direct the Divisional Forest Officer, Jharsuguda, Respondent No.7, to initiate proceedings against the Respondent No.7, Aditya Construction, for violation of environmental norms as per law.

¶127

¶128

We also direct the Tahasildar, Jharsuguda, Respondent No.6, to take steps for recovery of balance amount of Rs.14,44,000/(Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Forty Four Thousand only), which, according to him, has not been paid by the Respondent No.11 towards royalty/penalty, remains in balance to be paid by the said Respondent.

¶129

The SEIAA, Odisha, Respondent No.4, Divisional Forest Officer, Jharsuguda, Respondent No.7, and the Tahasildar, Jharsuguda, Respondent No.6, shall file their Action Taken Report/affidavit of compliance within two months i.e., by 01.04.2025 , with the Ld. Registrar, National Green Tribunal, Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata.

¶130

I.As., if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

¶131

¶132

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶133

.....................................
B. Amit Sthalekar, JM
…..........................................
Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, EM
January 09, 2025,
Original Application No.26/2024/EZ
AK

¶134

1. Jitendra Kumar Pradhan S/O Ram Chandra Pradhan Aged About 36 Years v. 1. State of Odisha through Chief Secretary Government of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

1. Jitendra Kumar Pradhan S/O Ram Chandra Pradhan Aged About 36 Years v. 1. State of Odisha through Chief Secretary Government of Odisha

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

Subhash Datta vs Ministry of Environment Forests Climant Change Service through Joint Secretary

Shailesh Singh vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Mohammad Ziaurrahman Khan vs State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority Uttar Pradesh

Shivendra Dutt Shukla vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Dwarka Expressway Gurugram Development Association vs Muncipal Corporation of Gurugram

Bibekananda Pattnaik S/O Late Radhakrushna Pattnaik Aged About 58 Years vs 1. State of Odisha Represented by Chief Secretary Government of Odisha

Satrughan Meher S/O Late Lingaraj Meher Aged ABOUT47 Years vs 1. State of Odisha through Chief Secretary Government of Odisha

Sunil Paliwal vs Local Self Government Department

Subhash Datta vs Ministry of Environment Forests Climant Change Service through Joint Secretary

Mr Santosh Kumar Gupta vs Bihar Pollution Control Board

Jay Kumar vs State of Jharkhand

Rajan Kumar vs State of Bihar

Yodh Bdr. Thapa vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited through Chairman and Managing Director

Bibekananda Pattnaik S/O Late Radhakrushna Pattnaik Aged About 58 Years vs 1. State of Odisha Represented by Chief Secretary Government of Odisha