Allowed

Tribunal on Its Own Motion vs

NGT6 Nov 2025Original Application No. 929/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NGT, suo motu framed by villagers, examined encroachment and pollution of ponds in Meerut District. The Tribunal upheld prior directions, noted insufficient actions and missing documents by the District Magistrate, and issued specific directives for identification, demarcation, clearance, restoration, and monitoring of water bodies across the district and state.

What did the court decide?

Directing District Magistrate, Meerut to identify, demarcate, geotag, and assign UID to water bodies, prepare an Action Plan for restoration, remove encroachments, allocate funds, and submit monthly r

Tribunal on Its Own Motion vs — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item No. 7

¶2

Court No. 2

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL

¶4

PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶5

Original Application No. 929/2024

¶6

1.National Green Tribunal

¶7

Principal Bench, Faridkot House Copernicus Marg, New Delhi 110001 (on its own motion) Suo Motu

¶8

Versus

¶9

1. State of Uttar Pradesh

¶10

Through Secretary, Environment, Government of Uttar Pradesh. 17, Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow- 226001, Uttar Pradesh, Email- [email protected]

¶11

2 . District Magistrate, Meerut

¶12

Office of the District Magistrate, Collectorate, Meerut E-mail: [email protected]

¶13

3. Uttar Pradesh State Wetland Authority

¶14

17, Office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests 17, Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow- 226022, Uttar Pradesh Email: [email protected]/ [email protected], [email protected]

¶15

4. District Wetland Authority, Meerut

¶16

Vikas Bhawan, Civil Lines, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh -250001 Email: [email protected]

¶17

5. Divisional Forest Officer, Meerut 223/1, Civil Lines, Meerut – 25000 Email: [email protected]

¶18

6. Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board Through its Member Secretary, Building No. TC-12, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh 226010. E-mail: [email protected] …Respondents

¶19

Counsel for the Applicant:

¶20

None for the Applicant.

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents:

¶22

Mr. Ankit Verma, Advocate for respondents no. 1 to 5. Mr. Pradeep Misra and Mr. Daleep Dhyani, Advocates for respondent no. 6.

¶23

PRESENT:

¶24

O.A. No. 929/2024 NGT (on its own motion) Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 2

¶25

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER

¶26

_____________________________________________________________________________ Judgment Reserved on:- 11.07.2025 Judgment pronounced on:- 06.11.2025

¶27

Judgment

¶28

PRONOUNCED BY: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JM

¶29

The villagers of Village Dawal Jatoli, District Meerut, Uttar Pradesh have sent a Letter Petition dated 20.11.2023 (Pages 1 to 5 of the paper book) by post to this Tribunal which was treated and registered as O.A. No. 929 of 2024 in exercise of suo-moto jurisdiction in view of law laid down by

¶30

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Versus Ankita Sinha and Others, (2022) 13 SCC 401 .

¶31

The applicants have raised the grievances regarding encroachments and pollution causing damage to large number of johads/talabs/ponds in urban and rural areas of District Meerut seeking issuance of appropriate directions to concerned Authorities for removal of encroachments and restoration of the same. The relevant part of the letter petition enumerating grievances of the applicant is reproduced as under:-

¶32

“ विषय - प्रान्त उत्तर प्रदेश के जोहड़, तालाबों की भूमि सीिा की सही पैिाइश नहीीं हो रही है। और िेरठ जजले के दबोंगों ने जोहड़, तालाबों की जिीन पर कब्जा ककया हुआ है। नगर मनगि िेरठ की सीिा िें जो गााँव है। जाटोली गााँव िें भी इींजन चल रहे है. जजससे वातावरण प्रदूषित हो रहा है. िेरठ का प्रदूष्ण षवभाग अनमभज्ञ है।

¶33

X X X X

¶34

सषवनय मनवेदन यह है कक भारतविष के प्रान्त उत्तर प्रदेश के जोहड और सालाबों की नगर मनगि , िेरठ िें तहसील िें दजष आकलन सीिा को सही तरह से

¶35

O.A. No. 929/2024 NGT (on its own motion) Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 3

¶36

पैिाइश नहीीं की गयी है। और शहरों और ग्रािीणों ने तालाबों और जोहड़ी की जिीन पर कब्ज़ा ककया हुआ है हुआ है तथा प्रदूिण की िार झेल रहे नगर मनगि के सीिान्तगषत िें जाटौली गााँव िें डीजल इींजन चल रहें हैं. तथा क् ष िय प्रदुिण षवभाग अनमभज्ञता जाकहर कर रहा है. ध्वमन प्रदुिण का पैिाना भी सही नहीीं है

¶37

अत: िाननीय अमिकरण से षवनमत है की आवश्यक कायषवाही कराकर तालाबों, जोहड़ की जिीन को अषविुक्त कराया जाये. आपकी अमत कृपा होगी. ”

¶38

English translation by the Registry of this Tribunal of the relevant part of the letter petition reads as under:-

¶39

“ Subject: The land boundaries of ponds and streams in Uttar Pradesh are not being measured accurately. And the landowners of Meerut district have encroached upon the land of streams and ponds. Even in Jatoli village, which falls within the jurisdiction of the Meerut Municipal Corporation, engines are running, polluting the environment. The Meerut Pollution Control Board is unaware of this.

¶40

X X X X

¶41

It is my humble request that the assessment boundaries of the ponds and streams in the Meerut Municipal Corporation, Uttar Pradesh, India, have not been properly measured. Cities and villagers have encroached upon the land of the ponds and streams, and diesel engines are operating in Jatauli village, within the municipal corporation's limits, which is already facing pollution. The local Pollution Control Board is feigning ignorance. The noise pollution standards are also incorrect.

¶42

Therefore, we request the Honorable Tribunal to take necessary action to free the land of ponds and tanks. It would be a great favour.”

¶43

Since the averments made in the letter petition raised substantial environmental questions relating to implementation of enactments specified in schedule I of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, this Tribunal, vide order dated 04.09.2024, constituted a Joint Committee comprising District Magistrate, Meerut, Divisional Forest Officer, Meerut and U.P Pollution Control Board to obtain a factual report containing details of all the ponds existing in rural and urban areas of Meerut District, their specifications regarding area and also current status whether there are encroachments thereupon or not and also information as to whether

¶44

O.A. No. 929/2024 NGT (on its own motion) Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 4

¶45

johads/talabs/ponds are owned by private bodies or are on public land and directed the same to submit its report within two months giving details of ponds in District Meerut, including all specification relating to area, ownership, status of encroachment, etc.

¶46

In compliance thereof report dated 11.11.2024 (Pages at 6 to 137 of the paper book) was filed by the District Magistrate, Meerut which contained details of 3528 ponds including 3144 ponds in rural areas and 384 in urban areas. This Tribunal observed that as per the report, out of 3528 ponds 2949 ponds were free from encroachments while 61 ponds were encroached upon by raising temporary structures and 570 ponds and were encroached upon by raising permanent structures. As per the abovesaid report in respect of 80 such encroachment matters, proceedings under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 were pending while in two matters proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 were pending but information regarding remaining encroachments matters had not been given in the above said report and it was not mentioned as to what action was taken / to be taken by the District Magistrate for removal of encroachment in cases where no matter was sub-judice before any judicial or quasi-judicial forum.

¶47

Vide order dated 26.11.2024 this Tribunal directed the District Magistrate, Meerut to file response within two months as to the attempts/efforts made for removal of encroachment from the ponds which were admittedly encroached so as to comply with the direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court as contained in Hinch Lal Tiwari Vs. Kamla Devi & Ors. (2001) 6 SCC 496.

¶48

O.A. No. 929/2024 NGT (on its own motion) Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 5

¶49

In compliance thereof report dated 04.03.2025 (pages 138 to 139 of the paper book) was filed by the District Magistrate, Meerut. The relevant part of the report is reproduced below:-

¶50

“ षवियः िा० राष ्ट्र ीय हररत अमिकरण , नई कदल ् ली िे ं योजजत ओ०ए० सी ं ख ् या- 929/2024 Tribunal on Its Own Motion Vs State of UP व अन ् य क सम े ् बन ् ि िे ं । े

¶51

X X X X िा० अमिकरण द्वारा पाररत उक्त आदेशों का अनुपालन सुमनजित करने हेतु उप जजलामिकारी िेरठ , िवाना एवीं सरिना को मनदेश कदये गये। मनदेशों के अनुपालन िें प्राप्त आख्यानुसार अवगत कराना है कक

¶52

1- पूवष िें प्रेषित की गयी आख्या िें कुल 61 अस्थायी कब्जे वाले प्रकरणों िें अवैि कब्जा होने का उल्लेख ककया गया है। इन 61 प्रकरणों िें से तहसील िेरठ अन्तगषत 43 तथा तहसील सरिना अन्तगषत 05, कुल 48 प्रकरणों िें अवैि कब्जा हटवाया गया है। अवशेि प्रकरणों िें शीघ्र कब्जा हटवा कदया जायेगा। 2- िा० एन०जी०टी० के आदेश कदनाींक 26-11-2024 िें स्थायी कब्जे वाले तालाबों की सींख्या- 570 दशाषयी गयी है जबकक इस कायाषलय द्वारा प्रेषित आख्या कदनाींक 11-11-2024 िें स्थायी कब्जे वाले तालाबों की सींख्या 517 उजल्लजखत की गयी है। स ् थायी कब ् जे वाले प ्र करणो ं िे ं क ृ त कायषवाही की जस ् थमत ृ

¶53

क्रिाींक	तहसील	पूवष आ	ख्या िेंउज षववरण	ल्लजखत	वत	षिान िेंकृत	कायषवाहीृ
		स्थायी कब्जे	िारा- 67 िें योजजत वादों की सींख्या	पी.पी. एक्ट िें योजजत वादों की सींख्या	स्थायी कब्जे	िारा-67 िें योजजत वादों की सींख्या	पी.पी. एक्ट िें योजजत वादों की सींख्या
1.	िेरठ	248	31	0	248	33	0
2.	िवाना	138	18	1	133	11	03
3.	सरिना	131	31	1	131	26 तालाबो के सम्बन्ि िें 66 वाद योजजत	07 तालाबों के सींबींि िें 34 वाद योजजत ककये गये हैं।

¶54

O.A. No. 929/2024 NGT (on its own motion) Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 6

¶55

					ककये
					गये हैं।
योग	517	80	02	512	70	10

¶56

नोट - तहसीलदार िवाना द्वारा मनस्ताररत 07 वादों िें बेदखली के आदेश पाररत ककये गये हैं।

¶57

3- सभी सम्बजन्ित को तालाबों के सम्बन्ि िें योजजत ककये गये िारा-67 अथवा पी.पी. एक्ट के अन्तगषत योजजत ककये गये वादों िें प्राथमिकता के आिार पर सुनवाई कर मनस्तारण करने के मनदेश कदये गये है।

¶58

4- अन्य स्थायी कब्जे वाले तालाबों के सम्बन्ि िें पुनः सत्यापन कर षवमिवत् कायषवाही के मनदेश कदये गये हैं।

¶59

5- अवैि कब्जािुक्त करवाये गये तालाबों को आगािी विाष ऋतु से पूवष खुदवाने हेतु कायषवाही की जायेगी।

¶60

उक्तानुसार अनुपालन आख्या सादर सेवा िें प्रेषित है। ”

¶61

Vide order dated 05.03.2025 this Tribunal impleaded (1) State of Uttar Pradesh through Secretary, Environment, Government of U.P., (2) District Magistrate, Meerut, (3) U.P. State Wetland Authority, (4) District Wetland Authority, Meerut, (5) Divisional Forest Officer, Meerut and, (6) Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board as respondents no. 1 to 6.

¶62

Pursuant to notice, affidavit dated 03.05.2025 has been filed by respondent no. 2- District Magistrate, Meerut. The relevant part of the affidavit filed by respondent no. 2- District Magistrate, Meerut is reproduced below:-

¶63

“ Affidavit of District Magistrate Meerut in compliance of the order dated 05.03.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal X X X X

¶64

O.A. No. 929/2024 NGT (on its own motion) Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 7

¶65

6. That the present response is being filed in respectful compliance of the order dated 05.03.2025 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal, in this present Original Application.

¶66

7. That this Hon'ble Tribunal vide its order dated 04.09.2024, formed a Joint Committee and directed it to submit a report within a period of 2 months giving details of ponds in District Meerut; including all specifications relating to are, ownership, status of encroachment etc.

¶67

8. That in compliance with the directions issued by this Hon'ble Tribunal vide order dated 04.09.2024, a detailed report was submitted by the Joint Committee (through the Deponent) on 11.11.2024. It was therein disclosed that District Meerut comprises a total of 3,528 ponds, of which 3,144 are situated in rural areas and 384 in urban areas.

¶68

9. That it was stated that out of the total ponds, 2,949 are free from encroachments, however. 61 ponds have been encroached upon by the erection of temporary structures and 570 ponds by the construction of permanent structures. It is also mentioned that in respect of 80 such encroachments, proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code are presently pending, and in two cases, proceedings are underway under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act. 1971.

¶69

10. That a recent meeting of the District Wetlands Committee was convened on 23.04.2025 under the chairmanship of the deponent, wherein the Divisional Director of Social Forestry, Meerut Division, conveyed that, in compliance with the order dated 05.04.2025, passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal in the present Original Application, as well as in accordance with the guidelines set forth by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, specific directions have been issued concerning the restoration of ponds and removal of encroachments in the District Meerut. A copy of the minutes of the meeting is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R-2. 11. That additionally, the Divisional Director stated that the restoration efforts for the ponds area actively being undertaken through various governmental schemes and departments, including the Amrit Sarovar Yojana, Atal Bhujal Yojana, MGNREGA, Groundwater Fund, Gram Nidhi, and other such programs.

¶70

12. That the Tehsildar of Mawana has informed that, out of the cases concerning permanent encroachments as referenced in the earlier report, illegal encroachments have been removed from five ponds. Additionally, the Tehsildar of Sardhana has reported that in twelve such cases involving permanent encroachments, the illegal encroachers have been vacated. A copy of the report dated 28.04.2025, submitted by Tehsildar Mawana, report submitted by Tehsildar Sardhana 26.04.2025 is collectively being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R-3 (Colly).

¶71

O.A. No. 929/2024 NGT (on its own motion) Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 8

¶72

13. That the Tehsildar of Mawana has further informed that, in four cases instituted under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, orders for eviction have been duly passed on 25.03.2025. A copy of eviction order passed on 25.03.2025 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R-4.

¶73

14. That similarly a report has also been submitted by Tehsildar Sadar Meerut, wherein he has informed that a total of 34 cases are currently under consideration under Section 67 in Tehsil Sadar, Meerut. Proceedings for eviction have been undertaken in respect of 0.1386 hectares of land. Further, 50 instances of temporary encroachments have been observed on site, consisting primarily of makeshift structures such as huts and debris accumulations, of which 06 encroachments have been successfully removed. Additionally, 248 permanent encroachments have been recorded. A copy of the report dated 28.04.2025 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R-5 15. That the deponent most respectfully submits before this Hon'ble Tribunal that all earnest measures are being undertaken within the District Meerut, to ensure that the ponds are not encroached and are restored to their original nature as per their revenue records.”

¶74

10. Response dated 03.05.2025 has been filed by respondents no. 3, 4

¶75

and 5. The relevant part of the response filed by respondents no. 3, 4 and 5 is reproduced below:-

¶76

“ Response on behalf of respondent no. 3, 4 and 5 X X X X

¶77

3. That on dated 23.04.2025 a recent meeting of District Wetland committee was conducted under the chairmanship of District Magistrate, Meerut. In the meeting compliance of Hon'ble Supreme Court order Writ petition no 304/2018 related to wetland is discussed wherein ground truthing and wetland demarcation was discussed and the necessary directions were given for the OA 929 of 2024 to the concerned departments. True Copy of minutes of meeting dated 23.04.2025 is attached herewith as Annexure-1.

¶78

4. That in compliance of the above said order, instructions were issued to the concerned departments for restoration/rejuvenation ponds and removal of encroachments. 5. That on dated 24.04.2025, Divisional Director Social Forestry division Meerut / Member secretary District wetland authority Meerut vide letter no. 4742/5-3 sought information from 1.) ADM (Administration), 2.) Project Director-District Rural development officer, Meerut, 3.) District Development Officer, Meerut, 4.) District Panchayati Raj Officer, Meerut, 5.) Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department (Drainage and Gang Nahar Division) Meerut, 6.) Senior Geophysisht, Ground water Department, Meerut, 7.) Assistant Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department,

¶79

O.A. No. 929/2024 NGT (on its own motion) Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 9

¶80

Meerut. True Copy of the letter dated 24.04.2025 is annexed herewith as Annexure-2.

¶81

6. That on dated 26.04.2025 Assistant Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department Meerut vide letter no. 42/L.S./work/pond/2025-26 provided an information related to the proposed work plan. and on dated 28.04.2025 Senior по. Geophysisht, Ground water Department, Meerut vide letter 46/B.J.V/ACT/2025-26/Meerut provide an information related to the conservation, promotion, encroachment free, restoration and regeneration of pond. True copy of the letter dated 26.04.2025 and 28.04.2025 are annexed herewith as Annexure-3 (Colly)

¶82

7. That on dated 02.05.2025, Divisional Director Social Forestry division Meerut / Member secretary District wetland authority Meerut vide letter no. 4989/5-3 again sent a letter to the 1) ADM (Administration), 2) Project Director- District Rural development officer, Meerut, 3) District Development Officer, Meerut, 4.) District Panchayati Raj Officer, Meerut, 5.) Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department (Drainage and Gang Nahar Division) Meerut, reminding them to provide the information on urgent basis which were sought earlier vide letter no. 4742/5-3. True copy of the letter dated 02.05.2025 is annexed herewith as Annexure-4.

¶83

8. That concerned department has been advised to take required steps for restoration/rejuvenation of ponds and removal of encroachment therefrom.”

¶84

Reply dated 02.05.2025 has been filed by respondent no. 6-UPPCB

¶85

The relevant part of the reply filed by respondent no. 6-UPPCB is reproduced below:-

¶86

“ RESPONSE ON BEHALF OF UTTAR PRADESH POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

¶87

X X X X

¶88

3. That a recent meeting of District Wetland committee was conducted on 23.4.2025 under the chairmanship of District Magistrate, Meerut. Copy of minutes of meeting is attached herewith as Annexure-1.

¶89

4. That in compliance of the above said order, instructions vide letter No.96/G/OA-325/2015/929/2024/MRT/2025 dated 25/04/2025 were issued to the concerned departments for restoration/rejuvenation ponds and removal of encroachments therefrom, incorporating following suggestions-

¶90

Rain Water Harvesting.

¶91

Increment in water storage.

¶92

Development of catchment area.

¶93

Financing through various schemes like MNREGA/Amrit Sarovar/ Fifteenth Finance Commission/Gram Nidhi/Atal Bhoojal/ Bhoojal Nidhi etc.

¶94

To make ponds pollution free.

¶95

Disposal of pending cases of ponds filed in section-67 and PP Act.

¶96

Re-verification of permanently encroached ponds.

¶97

O.A. No. 929/2024 NGT (on its own motion) Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 10

¶98

Digging of ponds before rainy season which have been freed from permanent encroachment.

¶99

5. That information were also sought from Municipal Corporation, SDM Sadar/Mawana/Sardhana, District Panchayat Raj Officer (DPRO), District Development Officer, Project Director-District Rural Development Authority (DRDA), All Nagar Palika Parishad/Nagar Panchayat of District Meerut, Minor Irrigation Department, and Ground Water Department, Meerut vide letter No.96/G/OA-325/2015/929/2024/MRT/2025 dt. 25/04/2025. Copy of the said letter is annexed herewith as Annexure-2.

¶100

6. That at present information has been provided by the minor irrigation department and Ground water department. Report of minor irrigation department and ground water department elaborating about rejuvenation work done and work proposed for ponds which is annexed herewith as Annexure-3.

¶101

7. That concerned department has been advised to take required steps for restoration/rejuvenation of ponds and removal of encroachment therefrom.”

¶102

The applicant did not appear before this Tribunal in the course of hearing of the case and did not file any objections/response to the reports filed by the Joint Committee and responses filed by the concerned respondents before this Tribunal.

¶103

We have heard arguments addressed by learned Counsels for the respondents and we have gone through the material on record carefully.

¶104

In their submissions learned Counsels for the respondents have reiterated the factual and legal submissions made in the responses filed by them.

¶105

In Hinch Lal Tiwari Vs. Kamla Devi (2001) 6 SCC 496 Hon’ble Supreme Court held that ‘ponds’ are a public utility meant for common use and the ponds could not be allotted or commercialised . In that case Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the Government, including the Revenue Authorities i.e. Respondents 11 to 13, having noticed that a pond is falling in disuse, should have bestowed their attention to develop the same which would, on one hand, have prevented ecological disaster and

¶106

O.A. No. 929/2024 NGT (on its own motion) Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 11

¶107

on the other provided better environment for the benefit of the public at large. Such vigil is the best protection against knavish attempts to seek allotment in non-abadi sites. While setting aside the order of the High Court, restoring the order of the Additional Collector dated 25-2-1999 confirmed by the Commissioner on 12-3-1999 and directing respondents no1 to 10 to vacate the land, Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the State including Respondents 11 to 13 to restore the pond, develop and maintain the same as a recreational spot observing that it will undoubtedly be in the best interest of the villagers and will also help in maintaining ecological balance and protecting the environment. In that case Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:-

¶108

“13. It is important to notice that the material resources of the community like forests, tanks, ponds, hillock, mountain etc. are nature's bounty. They maintain delicate ecological balance. They need to be protected for a proper and healthy environment which enables people to enjoy a quality life which is the essence of the guaranteed right under Article 21 of the Constitution…..”

¶109

In Jagpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2011) 11 SCC 396 Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that since time immemorial, certain common lands had vested in village communities for collective benefit. Except in exceptional circumstances when used exclusively for the downtrodden, said lands were inalienable. Since Independence powerful people and a corrupt system had appropriated said lands for personal aggrandizement. Pointing out the harms in allowing such misappropriation, Hon’ble Supreme Court noted an urgent public interest in stopping such misdeeds and issued directions for eviction of illegal occupants and restoration of the common land to villagers. In that case Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:-

¶110

O.A. No. 929/2024 NGT (on its own motion) Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 12

¶111

“X X X X 19. … our ancestors were not fools. They knew that in certain years there may be droughts or water shortages for some other reason, and water was also required for cattle to drink and bathe in etc. Hence they built a pond attached to every village, a tank attached to every temple, etc. These were their traditional rain water harvesting methods, which served them for thousands of years.

¶112

20. Over the last few decades, however, most of these ponds in our country have been filled with earth and built upon by greedy people, thus destroying their original character. This has contributed to the water shortages in the country. Also, many ponds are auctioned off at throw away prices to businessmen for fisheries in collusion with authorities/Gram Panchayat officials, and even this money collected from these so called auctions are not used for the common benefit of the villagers but misappropriated by certain individuals. The time has come when these malpractices must stop. 21. In Uttar Pradesh the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954 was widely misused to usurp Gram Sabha lands either with connivance of the Consolidation Authorities, or by forging orders purported to have been passed by Consolidation Officers in the long past so that they may not be compared with the original revenue record showing the land as Gram Sabha land, as these revenue records had been weeded out. Similar may have been the practice in other States. The time has now come to review all these orders by which the common village land has been grabbed by such fraudulent practices. X X X X

¶113

23. Before parting with this case we give directions to all the State Governments in the country that they should prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorized occupants of Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat/Poramboke/Shamlat land and these must be restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the common use of villagers of the village. For this purpose the Chief Secretaries of all State Governments/Union Territories in India are directed to do the needful, taking the help of other senior officers of the Governments. The said scheme should provide for the speedy eviction of such illegal occupant, after giving him a show cause notice and a brief hearing. Long duration of such illegal occupation or huge expenditure in making constructions thereon or political connections must not be treated as a justification for condoning this illegal act or for regularizing the illegal possession. Regularization should only be permitted in exceptional cases e.g. where lease has been granted under some Government notification to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, or where there is already a school, dispensary or other public utility on the land.

¶114

24. Let a copy of this order be sent to all Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories in India who will ensure strict and prompt compliance of this order and submit compliance reports to this Court from time to time.

¶115

O.A. No. 929/2024 NGT (on its own motion) Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

¶116

¶117

X X X X”

¶118

In O.A. No. 325/2015 titled Lt. Col. Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi vs. Union of India & Ors. the issue for consideration in the original application was identification, protection and restoration of water bodies in Gurgaon in Haryana. However, in the light of proceedings which took place, the scope of the application was extended to the entire State and then to the entire country, in the interest of protection of environment.

¶119

This Tribunal noted the need for conservation of water bodies throughout India for healthy environment, particularly in the light of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hinch Lal Tiwari vs. Kamala Devi & Ors. (2001) 6 SCC 496 . This Tribunal observed that under Public Trust Doctrine, the State has to maintain and restore the water bodies. This inter-alia helps availability of water, protection of aquatic life, maintaining micro climate, recharge the ground water and e-flow of the rivers. In view of mandate of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the NGT Act, 2010, this Tribunal, vide order dated 10.05.2019, directed all States/UTs to review the existing framework of restoration of all the water bodies by preparing an appropriate action plan and to include restoration of water bodies as one of the items incidental to waste management covered by orders in O.A. No. 606/2018 Compliance of MSW Rules, 2016, directed CPCB to examine all such plans and furnish its comments to this Tribunal and to prepare and place on its website guidelines in the matter of restoration of water bodies and directed Central Monitoring Committee constituted in terms of order dated 08.04.2019 in O.A. No. 673/2018, News item published in “the Hindu” authored by Shri Jacob Koshy titled “More river stretches are now critically polluted”. This Tribunal considered the reports filed by CPCB and the U.P. Oversight Committee and status of

¶120

O.A. No. 929/2024 NGT (on its own motion) Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 14

¶121

compliance and issued further d irections v ide order dated 18.11.2020. The

¶122

operative part of order dated 18.11.2020 reads as under:-

¶123

“17. In NGT order dated 27.08.2020 in OA 351/2019, Raja Muzaffar Bhat vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors., it was observed:

¶124

“…

¶125

…. … … 8. One of the serious challenges is solid and liquid waste management, apart from encroachments. There are binding directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Almitra H. Patel Vs. Union of India & Ors¹ . and Paryavaran Suraksha vs. Union of India² on the subject of scientific management of solid waste and sewage/effluents in accordance with the statutory provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, (‘Water Act’) Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, (‘Air Act) and waste management rules framed under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (‘EP Act’). There is large scale non-compliance of the said statutory provisions which has led this Tribunal to consider the issue of river pollution in OA No. 673/2018, News item published in "The Hindu" authored by Shri Jacob Koshy Titled "More river stretches are now critically polluted: CPCB" in view of acknowledged data of 351 polluted river stretches in the country. Apart from the said issue, large scale failure has been found in the matter of solid waste management as repeatedly recorded in O.A. No. 606/2018. The Chief Secretaries of all the States/UTs were required to remain present in person before this Tribunal for interaction and further planning. In O.A. No. 325/2015, Lt. Col. Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi v. UOI & Ors., the Tribunal has considered the issue of restoration of water bodies. In Original Application No. 593/2017, Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti & Anr. v. UOI & Ors., the issue of untreated sewage or effluent being discharged in water bodies have been taken up for consideration. There are several other matters dealing with the such issues, including coastal pollution, pollution of industrial clusters etc.

¶126

9. There is discussion in the media about inadequacy of monitoring of action for restoration of lakes, wetlands and ponds which is certainly necessary for strengthening the rule of law and protection of public health and environment³ . Several

¶127

1 (2000) 2 SCC 679

¶128

2 (2017) 5 SCC 326

¶129

3 https://gradeup.co/lakes-in-india-i-4b99dc80-f6ce-11e7-9d78-07a242af4480 http://www.saconenvis.nic.in/publication/Lake%20Protection%20and%20Management%20o f%20Urban%20Lakes%20in%20India.pdf

¶130

http://www.worldlakes.org/uploads/Management_of_lakes_in_India_10Mar04.pdf

¶131

O.A. No. 929/2024 NGT (on its own motion) Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 15

¶132

directions have been issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.K. Balakrishnan and Ors. v. UOI & Ors.⁴ ”

¶133

18. We also note that the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organization (CPHEEO) has issued an advisory on “Conservation and Restoration of Water Bodies in Urban Areas”⁵ in August, 2013 which need to be followed. The matter was also considered by the Standing Committee on Water Resources (2015-16), Sixteenth Lok Sabha. Its Tenth Report has been published by the Ministry of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation under the heading “Repair, Renovation and Restoration of Water BodiesEncroachment on Water Bodies and Steps Required to Remove the Encroachment and Restore the Water Bodies”⁶ in August, 2016. Further, the “Guidelines for the Scheme on Repair, Renovation and Restoration (RRR) of Water Bodies under PMKSY (HKKP)”⁷ have been published by the Ministry of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, Govt. of India in June, 2017. The said report also provides useful material to be looked into by the enforcement agencies.

¶134

19. As regards, report of the CPCB on the subject of rain water harvesting, it appears that CPCB has not appreciated the direction of this Tribunal on the subject. While rain water harvesting may be required in all buildings and other places in urban areas, in the present context, the Tribunal has directed setting up of such facilities in sub water sheds along ponds for utilization of surplus rain water for restoration of the ponds which have become dry and for augmenting other ponds.

¶135

20. There is, thus, need for continuous planning and monitoring at National, State and District levels. Suggestions and observations of CPCB and the Oversight Committee need to be acted upon.

¶136

21. As suggested by the CPCB, a single agency needs to be set up in every State/UTs within one month. This work may either be assigned to the Wetland Authority of the State or the River Rejuvenation Committee or to any other designated authority such as the Secretary, Irrigation and Public Health/Water Resources. It is made clear that if the State Wetland Authority is to be assigned the task of protection of all water bodies, this task will be in addition to the normal functioning of the State Wetland Authority under the Wetland (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017. Such nodal agency must call a preliminary meeting on the subject with all the District Magistrates on or before 31.01.2021 to take stock of the situation and to plan further steps. Thereafter, a regular meeting may be held for periodic monitoring at the District level as well as the

¶137

4 (2017) 7 SCC 805

¶138

5 http://mohua.gov.in/upload/upl oadfiles/files/Advisory%20on%20Urban%20Water%20Bodies.pdf

¶139

6 http://164.100.47.193/lsscommittee/Water%20Resources/16_Water_Resources_10.pdf

¶140

7 http://pmksy-mowr.nic.in/documents/RRR_PMKSY_Guidelines_2017.pdf

¶141

O.A. No. 929/2024 NGT (on its own motion) Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 16

¶142

State level with the identified targets of proper and scientific identification and protection of all water bodies, assigning unique identification number, removing encroachments, preventing dumping of waste, maintaining water quality and restoration by taking other appropriate steps, involving the Panchayats and the community, utilizing the financial resources available from different sources. Steps taken need to be documented and compiled and reported to a central authority, preferably the CPCB . This Tribunal has already constituted a CMC to be headed by the Secretary, MoJS with the assistance of CPCB and other authorities to monitor remedial action for 351 polluted river stretches. Restoration of water bodies is also a connected issue which can be monitored by the same Committee atleast thrice a year at the national level.

¶143

Directions

¶144

22. Accordingly, we dispose of this application with following directions:

¶145

(i) All States/UTs may forthwith designate a nodal agency for restoration of water bodies, wherever no such agency has so far been so designated.

¶146

(ii) Under oversight of the Chief Secretaries of the States/UTs, the designated nodal agency may

¶147

a. Hold its meeting not later than 31.1.2021 to take stock of the situation and plan further steps, including directions to District authorities for further course of action upto Panchayat levels and to evolve further monitoring mechanism as well as Grievance Redressal Mechanism (GRM).

¶148

b. Submit periodical reports to the CPCB/Secretary Jal Shakti, Government of India. First such report may be furnished by 28.02.2021.

¶149

(iii) The CMC for monitoring remediation of 351 polluted river stretches, headed by the Secretary, MoJS may monitor the steps for restoration of water bodies by all the States periodically, atleast thrice in a year. First such monitoring may take place by 31.3.2021.

¶150

(iv) The CMC may give its action reports to this Tribunal in OA 673/2018 and first such report may be furnished preferably by 30.4.2021 by e-mail.

¶151

23. Any individual grievances may be first raised before the appropriate GRM or by moving the concerned District Magistrate which may be looked into on merits.

¶152

The application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶153

O.A. No. 929/2024 NGT (on its own motion) Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 17

¶154

A copy of this order be forwarded to the Secretary, MoJS, CPCB, the Chief Secretaries of all the States/UTs and all District Magistrates by e-mail for compliance.

¶155

All pending I.A.s and M.A.s will stand disposed of.”

¶156

18. In O.A. No. 65/2020 titled Sushil Raghav vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

¶157

this Tribunal referred to directions given in O.A. 325/2015 titled Lt. Col.

¶158

Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi vs. Union of India & Ors. and gave further

¶159

directions vide order dated 17.03.2021. The relevant part of the order

¶160

dated 17.03.2021 reads as under:-

¶161

“7. In view of above, the Chief Secretary, UP may take further action and ensure compliance in the matter of removing of encroachments and taking other steps for restoration of water bodies by periodically holding meetings with the District Magistrate for monitoring. In this regard, community involvement in appropriate manner may be considered. The data of steps taken may be placed on the relevant websites for awareness.

¶162

The application is disposed of.

¶163

A copy of this order be forwarded to the Chief Secretary, UP and State PCB by e-mail for compliance. The Chief Secretary, UP may forward a copy of this order to all the District Magistrates in the State who may in turn forward it to all the Village Panchayats.”

¶164

The directions already given by this Tribunal may be summarized as

¶165

under:-

¶166

(i) States/UTs have to carry out proper inventory of water bodies using Geological Survey Maps of India (reconnaissance survey) or using any other available technologies like Remote Sensing; All the water bodies in the States/UTs are to be identified, geo-tagged and assigned UID number;

¶167

(ii) States/UTs need to designate a single agency' as a nodal agency to ensure restoration of all water bodies in the respective State/UT in consultation with the concerned departments;

¶168

(iii) The wetland authority may be given responsibility of restoration of water bodies or a nodal agency or a separate body may be designated as done in case of Haryana (Haryana Pond Waste Water Management Authority), Madhya Pradesh (The Environmental Planning and Coordination Organization (EPCO) and Mizoram (Irrigation and Water Resource Department).

¶169

O.A. No. 929/2024 NGT (on its own motion) Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 18

¶170

(iv) Nodal agency may also co-ordinate with the respective State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) in the State or Pollution Control Committee (PCC) in the respective UT for ensuring timely compliance of directions in the matter;

¶171

(v) Action Plan is to be prepared to ensure restoration of all water bodies in the respective State/UT in consultation with the concerned departments allocating the role of each Department;

¶172

(vi) The Action Plan should have a component regarding continuous assessment of water quality of the water bodies to be done by SPCBs/PCCs;

¶173

(vii) The action plan has to indicate the prioritization of the work as to which work would be taken at what time; budgetary allocations have to be made and specific time-lines have to be fixed;

¶174

(viii) Harvesting of surplus water during excessive rains from any areas of catchment is to be optimized by enhancing the capacity of the existing ponds/water bodies;

¶175

(xi) Once adequate capacity enhancement of waterbodies takes place, excess flood/rain water may be channelized by using appropriate water harvesting techniques;

¶176

(xii) Water harvesting structures may be created in the subwatersheds to the extent possible;

¶177

(xiii) Additional water bodies/water harvesting structures may be set up wherever viable;

¶178

(xiv) The Ministry of Jal Shakti, being nodal Ministry for Water Resources in the country, may integrate restoration of water bodies under various schemes of Central Government or State Governments and may provide financial assistance;

¶179

(xv) Funds under MGNREGA may also be utilized for restoration of water bodies;

¶180

(xvi) The community at large may be involved at every level for identification demarcation and protection of ponds and lakes, maintaining water quality as per norms and removing encroachments and community participation may be encouraged and campaigns may be started in to restore, conserve water bodies; (xvii) Gram Panchayats are required to play significant role in identification demarcation and protection of ponds and lakes, maintaining water quality as per norms and removing encroachments;

¶181

(xviii) The action has to be monitored by the District Magistrates in coordination with the Department of Irrigation and Flood Control or other concerned Departments such as Department of Rural Development/Urban Development/Local Bodies/Forests/Revenue etc.;

¶182

O.A. No. 929/2024 NGT (on its own motion) Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 19

¶183

(xx) The District Magistrate may periodically hold a meeting of all the stakeholders for the purpose as per the District Environment Plan or Watershed Plan;

¶184

(xxi) the Chief Secretary may take appropriate action for over all monitoring for ensuring compliance in the matter of removal of encroachments and taking other steps for restoration of water bodies by periodically holding meetings with the District Magistrates and other stakeholders; and

¶185

(xxii) The CMC for monitoring remediation of 351 polluted river stretches, headed by the Secretary, MoJS may monitor the steps for restoration of water bodies by all the States/UTs periodically.

¶186

So far as the State of U.P. is concerned, in its report submitted to this Tribunal in O.A. No. 325/2015 titled Lt. Col. Sarvadaman Singh

¶187

Oberoi vs. Union of India & Ors. the Oversight Committee mentioned that Action Plan is under preparation. Water bodies/ponds are looked after by the newly created Department of Namami Gange and rural water supply. In each village, village ponds are maintained by Village Panchayat under the Panchayati Raj Department. The Forest Department also is involved in identification, development and maintenance of wetlands in the State. The construction and repair work on these ponds and water bodies is done under MGNREGA which is run by the Rural Development Department. These ponds are filled by Irrigation Department from their canals during summer season.

¶188

It may be added here that the issue of encroachment and unauthorized construction over the ponds in Tehsil Mawana and Sardhana, District Meerut was raised in O.A. No. 397/2023 titled Vinod

¶189

Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh . This Tribunal referred to the directions given by Hon’ble Supreme Court and also this Tribunal referred to above and issued further directions vide order dated 08.08.2023. The relevant part of order dated 08.08.2023 reads as under:-

¶190

O.A. No. 929/2024 NGT (on its own motion) Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 20

¶191

“15. In view of the above directions issued in Original Application No. 325/2015 Lt. Col. Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi vs Union of India & Ors., the District Magistrate (Meerut) and State Pollution Control Board is directed to take further action for restoration of the water bodies and to ensure removal of encroachment of ponds. The encroachments of temporary nature must be removed immediately and in case of construction of permanent nature, that shall be taken by the district authorities according to the rules.

¶192

16. The applicant present in person has submitted a list of ponds but has not submitted the details of the person who have encroached the ponds. In case of permanent construction, it requires that opportunity of hearing should be given to the concerned person and affected person must be impleaded as the respondent. Thus, applicant is advised to file individual case pond wise with the details of ponds and person who encroached the land, so that measurement, identification, and demarcation can be done and action shall be initiated against the person who have encroached the land.

¶193

17. The applicant is at liberty to place the records before the District Magistrate/Sub Divisional Magistrate (Meerut) for taking further necessary action and in case of further grievance, he is at liberty to file an application according to the National Green Tribunal rules.

¶194

18. With these observations, the application is disposed of.”

¶195

It may be mentioned here that directions given by Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Tribunal as mentioned above are already applicable in District Meerut for removal of encroachments and restoration of all the water bodies/ponds situated therein and the respondents were required to comply with the same. However, in the present case the District Magistrate has not filed copy of Action Plan prepared for identification, demarcation and protection of ponds and lakes and action taken for removing encroachments, restoring water bodies and maintaining water quality as per norms in District Meerut. In the report dated 11.11.2024 there is no mention regarding geotagging of the ponds and assignment of UID to the same. In his reports, the District Magistrate, Meerut has also not given requisite

¶196

O.A. No. 929/2024 NGT (on its own motion) Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 21

¶197

details regarding compliance with direction given by Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Tribunal in the cases referred above.

¶198

Directions by the Tribunal

¶199

In view of the above discussion and facts and circumstances of the case the present original application is disposed of with the following directions:-

¶200

(a) Directions to the District Magistrate, Meerut

¶201

(i) The District Magistrate, Meerut is directed to take requisite measures for identification and demarcation of water bodies as per revenue record with revenue number, measurements and boundaries and geotagging the same and assigning UID number to the same (if not already done);

¶202

(ii) The District Magistrate, Meerut is directed to get the Action Plan prepared mentioning the role of each of the concerned Departments (if not already done) indicating the (a) names of the water bodies to be rejuvenated, (b) the budgetary allocation for each water body, (c) the respective time-lines for removal of encroachments and (d) completion of the works undertaken for restoration of the water bodies;

¶203

(iii) The District Magistrate Meerut is directed to include the programme of identification and demarcation, removal of encroachments and restoration of water bodies in the District Environment Plan and monitor the same on a monthly basis;

¶204

(iv) The District Magistrate, Meerut is directed to ensure that funds are allocated by budgetary grant from the budget heads of the respective Departments or alternatively, from MGNREGA funds given by Rural Development Department or from the devolution funds given to the respective Gram Panchayats for carrying out these activities; and

¶205

(v) Monthly reports regarding implementation of the Action Plan and identification, demarcation, geotagging and assignment of UID, removal of encroachments, restoration of water bodies and maintenance of water quality may be uploaded on the website of the District Administration and may also be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh through proper channel and quarterly reports may be filed before Ld. Registrar General of this Tribunal;

¶206

(b) Directions to the Divisional Forest Officer, Meerut

¶207

(i) The Divisional Forest Officer, Meerut is directed to plan out afforestation activities on the banks of the water bodies in

¶208

O.A. No. 929/2024 NGT (on its own motion) Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 22

¶209

consultation with the District Environment Committee and concerned Panchayat Raj Authorities and concerned Gram Panchayat for protection and enhancement of the catchment areas of the water bodies; and

¶210

(ii) The Divisional Forest Officer, Meerut is also directed to take appropriate steps for maintenance/care of the trees planted and to submit periodical reports to the District Magistrate, Meerut and to file six monthly reports before Ld. Registrar General of this Tribunal.

¶211

(c) Directions to the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh

¶212

(i) T he Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh is directed to take further action for over all monitoring for ensuring compliance in the matter of identification, demarcation, removal of encroachments and restoration of water bodies and issue appropriate directions in this regard as may be required;

¶213

(ii) The Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh is also directed to periodically hold meetings with the District Magistrates, including District Magistrate, Meerut for ascertaining the status of compliance in the District and issue appropriate directions to them individually for taking further action in the District as may be required; and

¶214

(ii) The Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh is directed to submit reports before this Tribunal in terms of the directions already given by this Tribunal in this regard. (d) Directions to the CMC for monitoring remediation of 351 polluted river stretches

¶215

(i) T he CMC for monitoring remediation of 351 polluted river stretches, headed by the Secretary, MoJS may monitor the steps for restoration of water bodies by all the States including State of U.P. and UTs periodically; and

¶216

(ii) T he CMC for monitoring remediation of 351 polluted river stretches is directed to submit reports before this Tribunal in terms of the directions already given by this Tribunal in this regard.

¶217

Reports by the District Magistrate, Meerut and Divisional Forest Officer, Meerut as directed above may be filed b efore the Ld. Registrar General, National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi who may, if further orders by the Bench are considered to be necessary, list the matter before the Bench for further directions.

¶218

O.A. No. 929/2024 NGT (on its own motion) Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 23

¶219

A copy of this order may be sent to the Secretary, MoJS, Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Member Secretary, UPPCB, District Magistrate, Meerut and Divisional Forest Officer, Meerut by e-mail for requisite compliance.

¶220

Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM

¶221

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶222

November 06^th 2025 Ag

Tribunal on Its Own Motion vs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tribunal on Its Own Motion vs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babulal Sahu vs State of Rajasthan

K Ramamoorthy vs the Chief Secretary and 10 Others

National Nature Society vs Principal Secretary Department of Mines Petroleum

Alina Reji vs

Jagvir Singh vs

R Manikandan vs Collectorate

Kaka Ashok vs Central Pollution Control Board

News Item Titled "Salt-Pan Encroachments in Rivers Caused Flood: Vilathikulam Residents" Appearing in the Express News Service Dated 28.12.2023 vs Environment and Forest Department Govt of Tamil Nadu

Prasher Dev Sharma vs

Simagamsetti Venkata Surya Bhaskara Rao vs

Janardan Dugrakoti vs

Surndra and Ors. vs

Harpal Singh vs

Ram Kumar Shukl vs