Remanded

News Item Titled "472 Acres of Lake Land Encroached in Bengaluru But Only 17 Acres Reclaimed" Appearing in the New Indian Express Dated 29.07.2025 vs

NGT6 Aug 2025Original Application No. 396/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal registered an original application suo motu concerning widespread encroachment of lake land in Bengaluru. It identified relevant respondents and transferred the matter to the Southern Zonal Bench in Chennai for further action.

What did the court decide?

The original application was transferred to the Southern Zonal Bench, Chennai, for appropriate further action.

News Item Titled "472 Acres of Lake Land Encroached in… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item No. 03

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Original Application No.396/2025

¶5

News Item titled "472 acres of lake land encroached in Bengaluru but only 17 acres reclaimed" appearing in The New Indian Express dated 29.07.2025

¶6

Date of hearing: 06.08.2025

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER

¶8

Respondent: None

¶9

ORDER

¶10

This original application is registered suo motu on the basis of the news item titled "472 acres of lake land encroached in Bengaluru but only 17 acres reclaimed" appearing in The New Indian Express dated 29.07.2025.

¶11

The news item reports widespread encroachment of lake land in Bengaluru. As per the news item, 472 acres of lake land have been found to be encroached in areas under the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), but so far, only 17.38 acres have been recovered.

¶12

The news item mentions that surveys by the Revenue Department are reportedly ongoing, and BBMP’s lake wing has initiated notices to some encroachers. The news item further mentions that of 472 encroached acres, 17.38 acres have been reclaimed with help from the Revenue department and police.

¶13

As per the news item among the bigger encroachers are government agencies on 288 acres, while 188 acres are encroached by private persons. Among the surveys done on 136 lakes, BBMP managed to

¶14

¶15

remove encroachments on 29 water bodies. On 31 lakes, only government encroachments have been recorded.

¶16

The above matter indicates violation of the provisions of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

¶17

The news item raises substantial issues relating to compliance with the environmental norms and implementation of the provisions of scheduled enactment.

¶18

Power of the Tribunal to take up the matter suo-motu has been recognized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Ankita Sinha & Ors.” reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 897 .

¶19

Hence, we implead the following as respondents in the matter:

¶20

Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), Through it’s Chief Commissioner, Chief Commissioner Office, N.R Square, BBMP, Bengaluru – 560002;

¶21

Karnataka Tank Conservation and Development Authority, Through it’s Director, Karnataka Tank Conservation & Development Authority, Ground Floor, Beeja Bhavan, Bellary Road, Hebbal, Bengaluru – 560024;

¶22

Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Through it’s Member Secretary, Parisara Bhavana, No #49, Church Street , Bengaluru – 560001;

¶23

Bangalore Development Authority, Through it’s Commissioner, Head Office, Bangalore Development Authority, Kumara Park West, T.Chowdaiah Road,Bengaluru – 560020;

¶24

Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), Regional Office, Bangalore Kendriya Sadan, 4th Floor, E&F Wings, 17th Main Road, Koramangala II Block, Bangalore – 560034.

¶25

¶26

Issue notice to the above respondents for filing their response/reply by way of affidavit before the Southern Zonal Bench of the Tribunal at least one week before the next date of hearing. If any respondent directly files the reply without routing it through his advocate, then the said respondent will remain virtually present to assist the Tribunal.

¶27

Since the matter falls within the jurisdiction of Southern Zonal Bench of the Tribunal, therefore, the OA is transferred to the Southern Zonal Bench, Chennai for appropriate further action. Let the original record of the OA be transferred to Southern Zonal Bench, Chennai.

¶28

List before Southern Zonal Bench at Chennai on 22.09.2025.

¶29

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶30

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶31

August 06, 2025 Original Application No.396/2025 JG.

¶32

News Item Titled "472 Acres of Lake Land Encroached in Bengaluru But Only 17 Acres Reclaimed" Appearing in the New Indian Express Dated 29.07.2025 vs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

News Item Titled "472 Acres of Lake Land Encroached in Bengaluru But Only 17 Acres Reclaimed" Appearing in the New Indian Express Dated 29.07.2025 vs

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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vana Charitable Trust Mangaluru vs State of Karnataka

Tribunal on Its Motion Suo Motu Based on News Item in the Times of India Dt 14TH July 2023 on Sipcot Kills a Lake to Build a Park vs Chief Engineer Water Resources Department Chepauk Chennai Tamil Nadu

Surti Mohmmedirfan vs Gujarat Pollution Control Board

Haripriya Patel vs State of Odisha

Sri Sunkara Swamy Naidu Welfare vs Union of India

N. Malayalathan vs Puducherry Coastal Zone Management Authority Rep by Its Member Secretary

Adinath Bhujaballi Kuchanur vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

News Item Titled "4 Vaahan Aur 2 Jcb Seaze Avaidh Ret Parivahan Par Karyavai" Appearing in Bastar Prakash Dated 29.01.2024 vs Chattisgarh Environment Conservation Board

Ms Sunshine Rubber Industries vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Ms Sunshine Rubber Industries vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Madhuban Bapudham Welfare Society vs Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad

Munish Kumar Sharma vs Vkm Township Pvt. Ltd. through Its Promoters

Devanshu Bose vs Agra Development Authority

Mukesh Kumar Tiwari vs