Disposed

Nitin Dev vs

NGT26 May 2025Original Application No. 961/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This case dealt with an application regarding alleged encroachment and illegal commercial operations at a forest-leased property. The Tribunal held that adjudication on encroachment legality lies outside its jurisdiction but directed statutory authorities to expedite eviction proceedings and disposal of pending notices within six months.

What did the court decide?

Directed authorities to dispose of pending eviction applications and notices expeditiously within six months and verified removal of encroachment.

Nitin Dev vs — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

(Court No. 2)

¶2

Item no.1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

(Through Physical Hearing with Hybrid VC Option)

¶5

Original Application No.961/2024 I.A. No. 183/2025

¶6

IN THE MATTER OF:

¶7

1. Nitin Dev, Tapovan, Tehri Garhwal, 249192 Phone: 8979589982.

¶8

…Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

1. State of Uttarakhand, Through Principal Secretary, Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Dehradun 4th Floor, Secretariat Building, Dehradun - 248001 Email: [email protected]

¶11

2. Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board, Through its Member Secretary, 1^st Floor, Van Bhawan, Kaulagarh Road, Dehradun - 248195 Email: [email protected]

¶12

3. District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal Collectorate, New Tehri, Tehri Garhwal, Uttarakhand, PIN-249001 E-Mail: [email protected].

¶13

4. Divisional Forest Officer, Tehri Garhwal, Divisional Forest Officer, Tehri Forest Division, New Tehri Email: dfotehri [email protected]

¶14

5. M/s Osho Gangadham (Janki Kutiya), Patha No. 52, Brahmapuri, Tehri Garhwal. …Respondents

¶15

For the Applicant:

¶16

Applicant in person (Through VC).

¶17

O. A. No. 961/2024 Nitin Dev Vs. & State of Uttarakhand & Ors. -2-

¶18

For the Respondents:

¶19

Mr. Deepak Bora, Advocate for respondents no. 1 and 4.

¶20

Mr. Mukesh Verma and Ms. Vatsala Tripathi, Advocates for respondent no.2.

¶21

Mr. Kaushal Gautam, Advocate for respondent no. 3 (through VC).

¶22

Ms. Chhaya Gupta, Advocate for respondent no. 5.

¶23

PRESENT:

¶24

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

¶25

Order Reserved on:- 21.03.2025

¶26

Order pronounced on :- 26.05.2025

¶27

Application is registered based on a letter petition received by Post.

¶28

Order

¶29

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

¶30

Mr. Nitin Dev, Deecon Valley Residence Welfare Society, Tapovan, Tehri Garhwal made complaint dated 22.11.2023 on public grievance portal ([email protected]) of this Tribunal, which has been treated and registered as Original Application (O.A.) No.961/2024 for exercise of suo motu jurisdiction.

¶31

The applicant raised grievances regarding encroachment on forest land and illegal cutting of trees by Osho Ganga Dham (Janki Kutiya) at Brahampuri and operationalization as commercial hotel/resort in violation of conditions of lease agreement and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

¶32

The relevant part of the complaint registered as original application enumerating grievances of the applicant reads as under:

¶33

O. A. No. 961/2024 Nitin Dev Vs. & State of Uttarakhand & Ors. -3-

¶34

“X X X X

¶35

“I am writing to file a detailed complaint against the serious environmental violations committed by Osho Ganga Dham (Janki Kutia), operated by Umed Pal Sharma, located in Brahampuri. My complaint encompasses not only severe environmental violations but also deceptive business practices thereby violating the lease terms and conditions.

¶36

1. Systematic Forest Encroachment and Environmental Damage: Over time, Osho Ganga Dham has engaged in a systematic and unethical practice of expanding into the forest area well beyond the area covered under Lease No. 52. This expansion has been carried out through the illegal cutting of trees, aimed at enlarging their commercial venture. Such actions not only contravene environmental laws but also have led to significant environmental degradation and deforestation. I urge a thorough investigation into these activities, involving a detailed cross-reference with all forest survey records, permissions sought, denials, and notices issued to the establishment over the past years. This review is essential to uncover the full extent of the encroachment and the corresponding environmental impact.

¶37

2. Disguised Commercial Operations: I wish to draw your attention to the fact that Osho Ganga Dham, pretending to be operating as a spiritual ashram, in real sense functioning as a commercial hotel/resort. This constitutes a direct violation of the terms and conditions of the lease agreement with the forest department, which explicitly states that the leased property is to be used solely for spiritual purposes. To uncover the extent of these commercial activities, I recommend a thorough investigation that includes scrutinizing their entry register records and bank accounts. Additionally, interviewing past and present guests could provide valuable insights into the actual operations and nature of the establishment. I would like to request to compare the activities of Osho Ganga Dham with all the other spiritual ashrams running in the same vicinity on lease lands by the forest department.

¶38

3. Cross-Departmental Compliance Verification: In addition, I request a thorough verification of the establishment's compliance with fire safety, tourism, and pollution control regulations. Given its covert commercial operations, it is essential to ensure that all legal and safety norms are strictly adhered to.

¶39

I urgently request your office to take the strictest possible actions against Osho Ganga Dham, including imposing appropriate penalties for the environmental violations, unauthorized expansion, and deceptive commercial operations. Furthermore, I strongly advocate for the cancellation of Lease No. 52, given the blatant disregard for its terms and conditions. The preservation of our forests and the enforcement of legal obligations are of paramount

¶40

O. A. No. 961/2024 Nitin Dev Vs. & State of Uttarakhand & Ors. -4-

¶41

importance, and I trust that your decisive actions will serve as a deterrent to such activities in the future.

¶42

It is requested to keep me informed when inspection is done so that I can assist the team in highlighting the violations committed by Osho Ganga Dham Resort.”

¶43

The applicant also enclosed photographs in support of the averments made in the complaint.

¶44

Vide order dated 17.09.2024, this Tribunal constituted a Joint Committee comprising of representatives of the District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal; the Divisional Forest Officer, Tehri Garhwal and the Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board and directed the same to visit the site, collect relevant information and submit a factual report within one month.

¶45

In compliance of order dated 17.09.2024, the District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal filed Compliance Report dated 21.10.2024 alongwith report of the Joint Committee vide email dated 21.10.2024.

¶46

The relevant part of the Action Taken Report reads as under:-

¶47

“ COMPLIANCE REPORT ON BEHALF OF DM, TEHRI GARHWAL, BASED ON THE JOINT COMMITTEE'S FINDINGS IN FURTHERANCE OF ORDER DATED 17.09.2024 OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL

¶48

X X X X

¶49

2. That in compliance with the above order, the joint committee conducted an inspection on 24.09.2024 at the premises of Osho Ganga Dham (Janaki Kutia), situated at Patta No.-52, Brahmapuri, Tehri Garhwal. Present at the inspection were representatives of Osho Ganga Dham, including Nitin Dev, along with Revenue and Forest Department officials.

¶50

3. Lease Details: (i) Lease No.-52, in the name of Swami Vivekanand Das, covers 0.2089 hectares of forest land in Brahmapuri, Tehsil Narendranagar, district Tehri Garhwal, originally sanctioned for a period of 30 years. (ii) The lease was renewed for another 30 years, starting from 10.06.2001. After the demise of Swami Vivekanand Das in 2011, "Osho Ganga Dham" has been established and is operating on leased land.

¶51

O. A. No. 961/2024 Nitin Dev Vs. & State of Uttarakhand & Ors. -5-

¶52

4. Land Area under Lease: The total area sanctioned under the lease is 0.2089 hectares. 5. Land Possession Status: During the joint measurement of land by the Revenue and Forest Departments, 0.4146 hectares were found to be under the possession of Osho Ganga Dham, as against the 0.2089 hectares approved under the lease. Of this, 0.1566 hectares are built up, and 0.2580 hectares remain as open space.

¶53

6. Sewer System: While the premises do not have a sewage treatment plant, a septic tank has been constructed near the riverbank. The sewage is not being discharged into the river. By letter No. UKPCB/ROD/NGT-121/202425/2300-1180 dated 15.10.2024, the Regional Officer of the Pollution Control Board, Dehradun has directed the institution to obtain consent under Sections 25 and 26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.

¶54

7. Use of Forest Wood for Cooking: Currently, forest wood is not being used for cooking purposes. Instead, domestic LPG cylinders are being utilised in the kitchen in the premises. A notice has been issued to the Manager of Osho Ganga Dham (Janaki Kutiya) by the District Supply Officer, Tehri Garhwal, through letter No. 743/4088/Petro/2024-25 dated 16.10.2024.

¶55

8. Waste Disposal: The waste generated by the institute is collected by two waste collectors from Green Himalaya Sansthan, and both the disposal and collection of user charges are handled by Green Himalaya Sansthan.

¶56

9. Fire Safety: There is no fire-fighting system installed at the premises. On 15.10.2024, the Fire Officer of Narendra Nagar, Tehri Garhwal, issued an order (letter No. FS/NIA/2023) instructing the management to install a firefighting system and apply for the necessary NOC online. 10.Food License: A food license has not yet been obtained. The Senior Food Safety Officer of Tehri Garhwal issued a notice to the Manager of Janaki Kutiya (Osho Ganga Dham) on 16.10.2024 with instructions to comply.

¶57

11.Illegal Tree Felling: No evidence of illegal tree felling was discovered within the premises.

¶58

12.Use of Air Conditioning: Air conditioning units are installed and operational in the premises rooms. 13.Construction within Floodplain Zoning: The inspection also revealed that a hall, residential cottages, and temporary tin sheds had been constructed within the premises on Patta No. 52, located within the 100-year flood frequency zone. These structures are approximately 63 meters from the centre of the Ganga River.”

¶59

The relevant part of the Report of the Joint Committee reads as

¶60

under:-

¶61

O. A. No. 961/2024 Nitin Dev Vs. & State of Uttarakhand & Ors. -6-

¶62

“ 1. मा० राष्ट्रीय हररत प्राधिकरण में योजित मूल आवेदन संख्या 961/2024 ददनांक 17.09.2024 में पाररत आदेश के अनुपालन के क्रम में जिलाधिकारी दिहरी गढवाल नोडल अधिकारी के रुप में , प्रभागीय वनाधिकारी , नरेन्द्रनगर वनप्रभाग , मुधनकीरेती , दिहरी गढवाल एवं क्षेत्रीय अधिकारी , उत्तराखण्ड प्रदूषण धनयंत्रण बोडड , देहरादून की सयुक्त सधमधत के द्वारा ददनांक 24.09.2024 को ब्रह्मपुरी में ओशो गंगा िाम (िानकी कुदिया) , पट्िा संख्या- 52 का स्थलीय धनरीक्षण दकया गया। स्थलीय धनरीक्षण के दौरान धनधतन देव , ओशो गंगा िाम (िानकी कुदिया) के प्रधतधनधि एवं रािस्व ववभाग तथा वन ववभाग के अधिकारी गण उपजस्थत थे।

¶63

2. लीि का वववरणः- िनपद दिहरी गढवाल के तहसील नरेन्द्रनगर क्षेत्रान्द्तगडत स्थान ब्रह् म पुरी में स्वामी वववेकानन् द ् दास के नाम लीि संख्या 52 कुल 0.2089 हे० वन भूधम 30 वषों के धलये स्वीकृत है। लीि ददनांक 10.06.2001 से तीस वषड तक नवीनीकृत है। स्वामी वववेकानन् द ् दास की सन् 2011 में मृत्यु हो चुकी है। उक्त लीि भूधम पर वतडमान में ' ओसो गंगा िाम ' स्थावपत व संचाधलत है।

¶64

3. लीि भूधम का क्षेत्रफल लीि में कुल 0.2089 हे० भूधम स्वीकृत है।

¶65

4. अधतक्रमण की जस्थधतः- रािस्व ववभाग एवं वन ववभाग द्वारा ओसो गंगा िाम के कब्िे में जस्थत भूधम की पैमाईस / नाप िोप में लीि में स्वीकृत 0.2089 हे० भूधम के सापेक्ष कुल 0.4146 हे० भूधम कब्िे में पायी गई है। उक्त 0.4146 हे० भूधम मध्ये 0.1566 हे० भूधम धनधमडत क्षेत्र तथा 0.2580 हे 0 खुला क्षेत्र पाया गया है। अधिम कायडवाही हेतु वन ववभाग को सूधचत दकया गया है।

¶66

5. सीवर की जस्थधत: पररसर में सीवर ट्रीिमेंि प्लाि नही है , अवपतु पररसर में नदी ति के समीप सीवर सेजप्िक िैंक का धनमाडण दकया गया है। सीवर नदी में प्रवादहत नहीं हो रहा है। क्षेत्रीय अधिकारी , प्रदूषण धनयंत्रण बोडड , देहरादून के पत्र आरओडी/ NGT-121/2024-25/2300-1180 संख्या- यूकेपीसीबी / ददनांक 15.10.2024 के द्वारा िल (प्रदूषण धनवारण एवं धनयंत्रण) अधिधनयम 1974 की िारा 25/26 एवं वायु (प्रदूषण धनवारण एवं धनयंत्रण) अधिधनयम- 1981 की िरा- 21 के अन्द्तगडत सहमधत प्राप्त करने के हेतु आदेधशत दकया गया है।

¶67

6. िंगल की लकदडयों से खाना बनाने की जस्थधतः वतडमान में िंगल की लकदडयों का उपयोग खाना बनाने में नही दकया िा रहा है , दकन्द्तु पररसर के कीचन में घरेलू धसलेण्डरों का उपयोग दकया िा रहा है। जिला पूधतड अधिकारी , दिहरी गढवाल के पत्र संख्या - 743/40-88/ पेट्रो०/ 2024-25 ददनांक 16.10.2024 के द्वारा प्रबन्द्िक , ओशो गंगा िाम (िानकी कुदिया) को नोदिस ददया गया है।

¶68

7. कूडा धनस्तारण की जस्थधतः- संस्थान के कूडे का संिहण िीन दहमालया संस्था के 2 कूडा संिहकों के माध्यम से दकया िाता है एवं जिसका कूडा धनस्तारण एवं यूिर चािड कलैक्शन िीन दहमालया संस्था द्वारा ही दकया िाता है।

¶69

O. A. No. 961/2024 Nitin Dev Vs. & State of Uttarakhand & Ors.

¶70

-7-

¶71

8. फायर की अनापवत्त की जस्थधतः पररसर में अजननशनम की व्यवस्था नहीं है। अजननशमन अधिकारी नरेन्द्रनगर , दिहरी गढवाल के द्वारा ददनांक 15.10.2024 को पत्रांक एफ०एस०/धन 0 अ 0/2023 के द्वारा सम्बजन्द्ित प्रबन्द्िन को अजननशमन की व्यवस्था पूणड कर ऑन लाईन आवेदन कर अजननशमन की अनापवत्त प्रमाण पत्र प्राप्त करने हेतु आदेधशत दकया गया है।

¶72

9. फूड लाईसेंस की जस्थधतः फूड लाईसेंस प्राप्त नहीं है। वररष्ठ / खाद्य सुरक्षा अधिकारी दिहरी गढवाल के द्वारा प्रबन्द्िक िानकी कुदिया (ओशो गंगा िाम) को ददनांक 16.10.2024 को नोदिस िारी कर धनदेधशत दकया गया है।

¶73

10. पेडो के अवैि पातन की जस्थधतः- पररसर में पेडों के पातन दकये िाने के संबंि में कोई साक्ष्य प्राप्त नहीं हुये है।

¶74

11. पररसर में ए०सी० के प्रयोग की जस्थधतः- पररसर के कमरों में ए०सी० का प्रयोग हो रहा है।

¶75

12. ब्रह्मपुरी में ओशो गंगा िाम (िानकी कुदिया) , पट्िा संख्या- 52 में धनधमडत हॉल एवं कुछ आवासीय कॉिेि तथा अस्थाई िीन शैड धनधमडत दकये गये है िो दक बाढ मैदान पररक्षेत्रण की 100 वषीय बाढ आवृवत्त सीमा के अन्द्तगडत धनधमडत है तथा उक्त स्थान की गंगा नदी के मध्य से दूरी लगभग 63 मीिर है। ”

¶76

Vide order dated 24.10.2024 State of Uttarakhand through Principal Secretary, Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Dehradun; Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board, through its Member Secretary; District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal; Divisional Forest Officer, Tehri Garhwal and M/s Osho Gangadham (Janki Kutiya), Patta No. 52, Brahmapuri, Tehri Garhwal were impleaded as respondents no. 1 to 5. Mr. Kaushal Gautam, Additional Advocate General accepted notices on behalf of respondents no. 1, 3 and 4 and notices were ordered to be issued to respondents no. 2 and 5.

¶77

Notice was ordered to be served on respondent no. 5 through the District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal. Status Report dated 23.11.2024 was filed by the District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal, Uttarakhand in compliance of the order dated 24.10.2024 stating that notice was served upon Respondent No. 5- M/s Osho Ganga Dham through SubDivisional Magistrate Narendra Nagar on 12.11.2024.

¶78

O. A. No. 961/2024 Nitin Dev Vs. & State of Uttarakhand & Ors. -8-

¶79

The relevant part of the status report dated 23.11.2024 filed by the District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal, Uttarakhand reads as under:-

¶80

“ COMPLIANCE REPORT ON BEHALF OF DM, TEHRI GARHWAL IN FURTHERANCE OF ORDER DATED 24.10.2024 OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL

¶81

X X X X

¶82

2. That letter no. UKPCB/ROD/NGT-121/202425/2581-1325 dated 13.11.2024 was sent to the District magistrate for the updated report which stated that M/s Osho Ganga Dham (Janki Kutia) had been issued a notice by the Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board on 15.10.2024 for contravention of provisions of the Water and Air Acts. A notice was served giving a 15-day period for the explanation, but the unit is yet to respond and now it has been reported that the Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board is proceeding with the next course of action. Letter of the UKPCB (letter no. UKPCB/ROD/NGT121/2024-25/2581-1325 dated 13.11.2024) has been annexed as Annexure No. 04.

¶83

3. Food Safety and Drug Administration, Tehri, Uttarakhand found that there is no valid food license on record, and on 16.10.2024, Food Safety and Drug Officer Tehri Garhwal issued a notice to M/s Osho Ganga Dham (Janki Kutia) allowing 3 days' time for an explanation. A reminder has been issued by the food safety officer to M/s Osho Ganga Dham (Janki Kutia). The letter dated 13.11.2024 has been annexed as Annexure No. 5.

¶84

4. That by letter no. FS/NA/2023 Dated 13.11.2024, Fire Safety Officer Narendra Nagar in Tehri Garhwal informed the District magistrate on 15/10/2024 that a notice had been served to M/s Osho Ganga Dham (Janki Kutia) for lack of fire safety arrangements in the premises. However, up until this time, no compliance report has been submitted by the relevant owner or the manager responsible for the premises. Letter no. FS/NA/2023 dated 13.11.2024 of Fire Safety Officer Narendra Nagar, Tehri Garhwal informing the district magistrate has been annexed as Annexure No. 06.

¶85

5. That M/s Osho Ganga Dham (Janki Kutia) received a notice dated 16/10/2024 from the District Supply Officer, Tehri Garhwal, on the use of domestic cooking gas in the kitchen with a week's time to show cause. No reply has been received from the concerned owner/manager. As a result, a reminder letter has been sent by the District Supply Officer to M/s Osho Ganga Dham (Janki Kutia) on 14/11/2024 by letter no. 865/40-29/PETO/2024-2025. The reminder letter to M/s Osho Ganga Dham (Janki Kutia) dated 14.11.2024 has been annexed as Annexure No.07”

¶86

O. A. No. 961/2024 Nitin Dev Vs. & State of Uttarakhand & Ors. -9-

¶87

Reply dated 27.11.2024 has been filed by Additional Secretary, Forest and Environment, Uttarakhand, Dehradun on behalf of respondent no. 1. The relevant part of the reply reads as under:-

¶88

" Affidavit of Kahkashan Nassem (Female), aged about 44 years, D/o Sh. Abdul Sattar Ansari, presently posted as Additional Secretary, Forest and Environment, Uttarakhand, Dehradun. X X X X

¶89

After receiving the notice issued by this Hon'ble Tribunal in the present matter, a detailed report has been sought by the Forest Department through the Head of the Department. In order of the same the concerned Divisional Forest Officer i.e. the Divisional Forest Officer Narendra Nagar Forest Division Muni-Ki-Reti, Tehri Garhwal vide his letter 12.01/29-3(3) dated 16.11.2024 had furnished a detailed report in the present matter. Copy of the report dated 16.11.2024, furnished by the Divisional Forest Officer Narendra Nagar Forest Division Muni-Ki-Reti, Tehri Garhwal is being annexed and marked herewith as ANNEXURE-1.

¶90

3. That as per the report dated 16.11.2024, furnished by the Divisional Forest Officer Narendra Nagar Forest Division Muni-Ki-Reti, Tehri Garhwal, some of the essential facts are quoted here for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Tribunal as follows:

¶91

a) That a lease for 0.2089 Ha forest land in the reserved forest Brahmapuri compartment number-1 under Shivpuri range has been renewed/sanctioned in the name of Vivekanand Das for cottage/Kutiya purpose for 30 years under the prescribed conditions by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, letter No. B/Uttaranchal/09/137/2001/FC/220, dated 18.06.2001 (Annexure-01) and by Uttaranchal Government, Forest and Environment, vide letter No. 303/7-1-2001-800/1999, dated 30.07.2001 (Annexure-02).

¶92

b) That in compliance with the order dated 17.09.2024 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal, on 25.09.2024 a joint inspection was carried out of

¶93

O. A. No. 961/2024 Nitin Dev Vs. & State of Uttarakhand & Ors. -10-

¶94

lease no. 52 by a joint team of Revenue and Forest Department. According to the joint inspection report, the total area of leased forest land was found to be 0.4146 Ha, which is 0.257 Ha more than the sanctioned lease area.

¶95

c) That thereafter, a notice has been issued to Swami Vivekanand Das, Lessee, Lease No. 52 under Section-61A of the Indian Forest (Uttarakhand Amendment) Act, 2001 and the lessee has been directed to submit his stand/counter reply on the matter vide letter no. 1017/29-3, dated 24.10.2024 (Annexure-03) issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Narendra Nagar Forest Division.

¶96

d) That the Forest Range Officer, Shivpuri Range, in his report dated 16.11.2024 sent vide letter no. 261/29-3 has mentioned that the original lease holder Swami Vivekananda Das (Udayraj Singh) S/o Bhagwant Singh died on 28.06.2011 (copy of death certificate is Annexure-04). And since his death, Prem Chaitanya is illegally in possession of the said leased forest area.

¶97

e) That in condition number-2 of the lease renewal sanction order, it is mentioned that even after being leased, the forest land in question will be used by the said proposer only for the stated purpose and the said land or any part of it will not be transferred to any other department, institution or person'. Thus, it is clear that the lease no. 52 in question cannot be transferred to any other department, institution or person. It is noteworthy that the original lease holder Swami Vivekanand Das died on 28.06.2011, using the lease/reserved forest area in question after his death falls under the category of illegal encroachment, which is a violation of Section 20 of the Indian Forest (Uttarakhand Amendment) Act, 2001 and the provisions of the Forest Protection Act, 1980.

¶98

¶99

O. A. No. 961/2024 Nitin Dev Vs. & State of Uttarakhand & Ors. -11-

¶100

whose leaseholder has not used the forest land himself but has sold it to any other person or has sublet/transferred it under any agreement, such leases will not be renewed and the Forest Department/Revenue Department will get the forest land vacated and take it in its possession and criminal cases will be registered against the lessee under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and Forest Protection Act, 1980. Thus, it is clear that the original leaseholder Swami Vivekanand Das died on 28.06.2011 and using the leased/reserved forest area in question after his death is a violation of Section 26 of the Indian Forest (Uttarakhand Amendment) Act, 2001 and the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.

¶101

g) That in relation to the encroachment in question, Forest range Officer, Shivpuri Range has registered Rajivad (case) No. 09/Shivpuri/2024-25 under relevant forest laws against Prem Chaitanya who is illegally in possession of the leased/reserved forest land in question and further action is being taken. And at the same time, eviction proceedings are also underway at the division level under Section 61A of the Indian Forest (Uttarakhand Amendment) Act, 2001.

¶102

4. That the State Government has been vigilant on the issue of encroachment on the Forest land for last more than one year and the Government had also launched campaign to remove the encroachments from the forest land across the State. With regard to the present matter, detailed directions have already been issued to the department and the eviction process is being carried out by the department in accordance with law in the present matter.”

¶103

Reply dated 20.12.2024 has been filed by Respondent No. 5- M/s Osho Gangadham (Janki Kutiya) to Joint Committee Report dated 21.10.2024 and Report of Forest Department dated 27.11.2024. The relevant part of the reply reads as under:-

¶104

O. A. No. 961/2024 Nitin Dev Vs. & State of Uttarakhand & Ors. -12-

¶105

“ REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 5, M/S OSHO GANGADHAM (JANKI KUTIA) TO JOINT COMMITTEE REPORT DATED 21.10.2024 AND REPORT OF FOREST DEPARTMENT DATED 27.11.2024 X X X X X

¶106

2. That pursuant to the order of this Tribunal calling for factual report the joint committee submitted its report after inspection on 21.10.2024. In the said report the committee recorded certain findings which are not correct. Hence, this Court by order dated 24.10.2023 granted the answering Respondent time to file its reply. The answering Respondent is, therefore, giving a joint reply of the joint committee report dated 21.10.2024 as well as the report of the forest department dated 27.11.2024.

¶107

3. That earlier when the Tehril Garwal region was under the rule of Maharaja, at that time certain area within and outside the demarcated forest was earmarked for Sadhus for meditation and the area was called Brahmpuri in Shivpuri Range. Sadhus were allowed to stay free of charge in kutiya or hut for themselves.

¶108

4. That, thereafter, the entire estate of the then Maharaja was handed over to the Government, i.e., State of U.P. Under the terms of the handing over of the estate to government the privilege to the Sadhus were to continue and protected. However, as per the arrangement if the Forest Department wished to charge money from the Sadhus for the land occupied and utilised, it was only a token amount to ensure that property rights remain with the Government. A certificate in this respect was issued in 1965 by Maharaja Manabendra Shah of Tehri Garhwal evidents this fact. A true copy of the certificate of Maharaja Manabendra Shah of Tehri Garhwal dated Nil is ANNEXURE A-1

¶109

5. That in order to honour the commitment the State Government advised the Central Government to grant lease of the forest land to the sadhus. The said leases were granted to 10 sadhus including one Sadhu Janki Jiwan Das on 22.11.1965. The lease subsequently devolved in the spiritual lineage from Sadhu Janki Jiwan Das to his disciple Sadhu Vivekanand Das and subsequently the lease got renewed in year 2001 in his name. Thus, an ashram was made on the land much before the enactment

¶110

O. A. No. 961/2024 Nitin Dev Vs. & State of Uttarakhand & Ors. -13-

¶111

of any of the environment laws, which came to be repaired and renovated with time.

¶112

6. That on 26.07.2008 the said Sadhu Vivekanand Das (real name Udayraj Singh) created a religious trust on the said land by a registered trust deed. The trust was named Sri Janki Kutiya Dharmarth Trust in name of his guru. The trust has four trustees including Sadhu Vivekanand and present managing trustee Swami Prem Chaitanya. A true copy of the trust deed dated 26.07.2008 is ANNEXURE A- 2.

¶113

7. That answering Respondent is a religious trust an ashram where sadhus stay and are engaged in meditation and religious activities. There is no commercial activity being carried out in the said asharam and the trust runs on the donations given by the people. At times people come for stay for meditation etc. who provided food water and place to stay on cost only. There is also no commercial hotel or resort like facilities or service in the ashram but the entire place is more a domestic and individual residential place for sadhus.

¶114

8. Change of user name agency: That Sadhu Vivekanand passed away on 28.06.2011. Thereafter, the entire responsibility of the asham came upon Swami Prem Chaitanya. On 16.08.2019 Swami Prem Chaitanya made an application to DFO Narendra Nagar, Tehri Garwal for change of user name for the forest lease from Swami Vivekanand to his name. Reminder to the said application was also sent on 30.11.2019, but the said application is still pending consideration. A true copy of the Application for change of user agency dated 16.08.2019 and reminder letter dated 30.11.2019 is ANNEXURE A-3.

¶115

9. That as the application of Swami Prem Chaitanya is not rejected and pending consideration, it cannot be said that he is in illegal occupation of the land. Moreover, the forest department has read the condition no. 2 of the renewal dated 30.07.2001 incorrectly. The said provision says that even after being given on lease the forest land in question will be used by the said proposer for the stated purpose only and the said land or any part of the said land will be transferred to any other department, institution or persons. The said provision clearly prohibited any transfer of the land. There is no provision which prohibits the devolution of lease rights of property to another.

¶116

O. A. No. 961/2024 Nitin Dev Vs. & State of Uttarakhand & Ors. -14-

¶117

10. That Swami Prem Chaitanya has not become owner of the leased forest land on devolution, but only the remaining period of lease rights of the land has devolved upon him. Thus, the paragraph 3 (d), (e) (f) and (g) of report of forest department are based on incorrect understanding and misinterpretation of the condition in renewal deed.

¶118

11. Occupation of land in excess of lease: That in light of the aforesaid it is submitted that the answering Respondent is in occupation of only 0.2089 hectares of forest land only as per the lease deed. It is pertinent to mention that admittedly ashram is constructed on only 0.1566 hectare of land out of 0.2089 hectare. Thus, there is no occupation of land by answering Respondent in excess of the lease granted. Moreover, in order to protect natural forest from any damage the answering Respondent has not even made any fencing or boundary around the ashram. Hence, the finding in the report of the joint committee as well as in the forest department are perverse and being against its own admission.

¶119

12. That it is further submitted that once the joint committee itself recorded that the buit up area is only 0.1566 hectare, the further observation of 0.2580 hectare of open space being in occupation of answering Respondent is vague. The open space itself suggest that no further land is occupied. Thus, the paragraph no. 5 of joint committee report and para 3 (b) and (c) of report of forest department are baseless and vague.

¶120

13. Sewer System: That the joint committee report in para 6 records that the ashram has a spetic tank and there is no discharge in river. It is pertinent to mention that the said ashram being built very long time back, and in forest, which is undisturbed hence, no STP was installed but septic tank and soak pit were in place. Ashram being a residential and domestic place for the Sadhus, they were unaware of the requirement of the consent from the board. Hence, no such consent was obtained. Moreover, there are other ashram nearby which also have not obtained any consent under Air and water Act. Hence, on 26.11.2024 answering Respondent have already written to the UKPCB in reply to its letter dated 15.10.2024 that it is willing to obtain the consent to operate as provided in law. A true typed copy of the letter sent to the UKPCB by the

¶121

O. A. No. 961/2024 Nitin Dev Vs. & State of Uttarakhand & Ors. -15-

¶122

answering Respondent dated 26.11.2024 is ANNEXURE A. 4.

¶123

14. That it is further submitted that in order to prevent any damage to environment as well as any conflict in law in future the answering Respondent has already proceed for setting up the sewage treatment plant at its ashram for which the report/advice of the EWS Greentech Pvt Ltd has also been obtained.

¶124

15. Use of forest wood for cooking: As per the observation made the answering Respondent is not utilizing the forest wood for cooking. However, it is submitted that ashram being a residential place for sadhus without any commercial activity carried out there is no bar on use of domestic LPG. Moreover, this observation was beyond the letter petition outside the scope of environment law.

¶125

16. Waste Disposal: In para 8 of the report of joint committee it is clearly mentioned that there are two waste collectors from Green Himalya Sansthan which handles the waste collection and disposal.

¶126

17. Fire Safety: The issue being not within the scope of environment law the observation made by joint committee was beyond the direction of this Tribunal. However, kutiyas in ashram being built many decades earlier had not installed the fire safety system. Also as it is not run on commercial level, hence, there was no requirement for the same. However, by letter dated 26.11.2024 the answering Respondent has responded to the District Fire Safety Officer that if provided in law it is willing to do the needful.

¶127

18. Food License: The issue being not within the scope of environment law the observation made by joint committee was beyond the direction of this Tribunal. However, as ashram is an domestic residential place for sadhus and not commercial place it is does not require food license. By letter dated 26.11.2024 the answering Respondent has responded to the District Food Safety and Drug Administration that if provided in law it is willing to do the needful.

¶128

19. Illegal felling of trees: Admittedly no evidence of illegal felling of trees found.

¶129

O. A. No. 961/2024 Nitin Dev Vs. & State of Uttarakhand & Ors. -16-

¶130

20. Use of air conditioning: The issue being not within the scope of environment law the observation made by joint committee was beyond the direction of this Tribunal. Also the finding are irrelevant and absurd. Though air conditions being found installed and operated but that itself is no illegality.

¶131

21. Construction within floodplain zone: The issue being not within the scope of this Tribunal and hence observation made by joint committee is absurd. The ashram was built many decades earlier. There was no flood plain zone at the time the ashram was built and, therefore, no fault can be found on the same. Also, there is no flood plain demarcation done in the region and hence, merely because the structures are 63 meters away is not sufficient to hold it within flood plain zone. It is pertinent to mention here that under the River Ganga (Rejuvination, Protection and Management) Authorities Order 2016 in para 6 construction is prohibited on active flood plain only and not high flood plain zone, which corresponds to the 100 year flood frequency. Further, the construction already existing are not held illegal under the order.

¶132

22. That it is lastly submitted that the ashram was built much before any of the environment law were enacted and came into force. Even under the provision of the NGT Act section 14 provides for limitation of 6 months from the date when the cause of action first arose. Section 14(3) of the NGT Act clearly provides that No application for adjudication of dispute under this section shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a period of six months from the date on which the cause of action for such dispute first arose. The language of the provision clearly suggests that there is no concept of continuing cause of action as the legislature in its wisdom has provided a outer limit of six months from the cause of action arising first. Hence, in present case the ashram being established and constructed in 1965 the cause of cannot be assumed to be continuiing till date. Even otherwise the cause of action can be said to have arose within 6 monthsof coming into existence of this Hon'ble Tribunal. However, at this stage the original Application is beyond limitation.

¶133

23. That it will not be out of place to refer to a judgement of high Court of Judicature at Bombay in Windsor Realty Pvt. Ltd.v. Secretary MOEF, W.P. No. 594 of 2015, decided

¶134

O. A. No. 961/2024 Nitin Dev Vs. & State of Uttarakhand & Ors. -17-

¶135

on 09.06.2016 wherein it was held that the concept of continuous cause of action is alien to this Tribunal. The High Court has held that:

¶136

"35. A bare perusal of the said section clearly discloses that period of limitation is six months from the date on which the cause of action first arose. Prima faice, therefore it cannot be interpreted by any stretch of imagination that it would arose from the date of knowledge of the original applicant of the alleged violation taking place or from the date on which the Environmental Authorities were informed about violation and inaction on their part. There appears to be a lot of confusion in the mind of NGT Bench, Pune on various aspects of continuous cause of action. Perusal of the said Section indicates that the concept of continuous cause of action cannot apply to the complaints which are filed before the NGT because had it been so, the legislature would not have stated that the limitation would be six months from the date on which the cause of action for such dispute first arose. If the interpretation which is sought to be given to the provision by the NGT Bench, Pune in the impugned order is accepted, the complaint could be filed by the aggrieved person at any point of time, claiming that he came to know about the violation after 10 or 20 years. At the same time, if there is any violation of the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the same have to be addressed and looked into. The only question is by which Authority."

¶137

Compliance report was filed by Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board vide email dated 20.12.2024. The relevant part of the compliance report reads as under:-

¶138

“ COMPLIANCE AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF UTTARAKHAND POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD X X X X 6) That in compliance of the above-mentioned order UKPCB vide letter no. UKPCB/HO/S. No183806/2024/1087 dated 07.11.2024 instructed R.O Dehradun to submit a report with clear recommendations proposed actions to be taken by UKPCB within 3 days. In this connection a copy of the letter dated 07.11.2024 is

¶139

O. A. No. 961/2024 Nitin Dev Vs. & State of Uttarakhand & Ors. -18-

¶140

being marked and filed as Annexure No. 3 to this affidavit.

¶141

7) That in compliance of UKPCB's letter, R.O Dehradun vide letter UKPCB/ROD/NGT-121/202525/2706-1396 dated 22.11.2024 informed that a site inspection of Shri Janaki Kutiya Charitable trust (Osho Ganga Dham) Brahmpuri was conducted on 15.11.2024. In which it was found that Osho Ganga Dham has not complied with the instructions issued by the R.O Dehradun. In this connection a copy of the letter dated 22.11.2024 is being marked and filed as Annexure No. 4 to this affidavit.

¶142

8) That thereafter, Member Secretary, UKPCB vide show cause notice dated 16.12.2024 directed the Osho Ganga Dham to show cause within 30 days from the issuance of the said notice and explain as to why the Unit should not be closed down under the provisions of Water Act and Air Act and also directed the concerned authorities to discontinue power and water supply of the Unit. In this connection a copy of show cause notice dated 16.12.2024 is being marked and filed as Annexure No. 5 to this affidavit.”

¶143

This Tribunal noticed in its order dated 23.12.2024 that as per report of the Joint Committee respondent no. 5 was found to be in possession of area measuring 0.4146 ha against lease of area measuring 0.2089 ha. In its reply, respondent no. 5 submitted that there was no occupation of land by respondent no. 5 in excess of the lease granted and the build up area of respondent no. 5 was only 0.1566 ha and there is no fencing or boundary around the ashram. This Tribunal observed that the first and foremost issue that arose in the case was regarding encroachment on forest land. The Joint Committee found encroachment by respondent no. 5 on forest land but respondent no. 5 has denied the same. Vide order dated 23.12.2024 respondent no. 5 was directed to file an affidavit specifically responding with respect to the following aspects:

¶144

i. Whether respondent no. 5 is in possession of any part of forest land in excess of lease area of 0.2089 granted;

¶145

O. A. No. 961/2024 Nitin Dev Vs. & State of Uttarakhand & Ors. -19-

¶146

ii. If respondent no. 5 is in possession of excess land, since when respondent no. 5 is in possession thereof;

¶147

iii. Whether respondent no. 5 is ready to surrender possession of the excess land under its possession and;

¶148

iv. If respondent no. 5 is not in possession of excess land, whether respondent no. 5 has any objection to taking of immediate possession of land in excess of the lease area by the concerned DFO, Tehri Garhwal.

¶149

In compliance of order dated 23.12.2024, reply dated 30.01.2025 was filed by respondent no.5- M/s Osho Gangadham (Janki Kutiya). The relevant part of the reads as under:-

¶150

“ REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDNET NO.5, M/S OSHO GANDADHAM (JANKI KUTIA) AS PER THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL DATED 23RD DECEMBER, 2024.

¶151

X X X X

¶152

3. That the quarries which are made by this Hon'ble Tribunal in para-7 are replied herein under:-

¶153

i. That answering respondent is not in possession of excess land/forest land and he is in possession of only 0.2089 hectare and built up area is 0.1566 hectare and open area itself suggest that no further land is occupied.

¶154

ii. That there is no question of surrender possession of the excess land because answering respondent is not in possession of excess land/forest land.

¶155

iii. That answering respondent is not in possession of excess land and he is only in occupation of 0.2089 hectare as per the lease deed and built up area is only 0.1566 hectare.

¶156

O. A. No. 961/2024 Nitin Dev Vs. & State of Uttarakhand & Ors. -20-

¶157

4. That in the light of the aforesaid, it is submitted that the answering respondent is occupation of only 0.2089 hectare of forest land as per the lease deed. It is pertinent to mention here that Ashram is constructed only on 0.1566 hectare of land out of 0.2089 hectare.

¶158

5. That answering respondent is giving undertaking before this Hon'ble Tribunal that no occupation of land in excess of the lease granted and to protect the natural forest from any damage, the answering respondent has not even made any fencing or boundary around the Ashram and in this regard the answering respondent is enclosing photographs of built up area of Ashram as Annexure No.1.

¶159

6. That as per the joint committee report filed by the Additional Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand, joint committee report itself recorded that built up area is only 0.1566 hectare, the further observation of 0.2580 hectare of open space being in occupation of answering respondent is vague and it is again submitted by answering respondent that he is in occupation of 0.2089 hectare of forest land as per the lease deed.”

¶160

Response affidavit dated 18.02.2025 was filed on behalf of

¶161

Divisional Forest Officer, Tehri, Uttarakhand. The relevant part of the

¶162

response reads as under:-

¶163

“ Affidavit of Puneet Tomar S/o Maya Ram Tomar, aged about 36 years, presently posted as Divisional Forest Officer (Acting), Tehri, Uttarakhand. X X X X

¶164

3. After receiving the notice issued by this Hon'ble Tribunal in the present matter, a detailed report has been sought by the Forest Department through the Head of the Department. In order of the same the concerned Divisional Forest Officer i.e. the Divisional Forest Officer Narendra Nagar Forest Division Muni-Ki-Reti, Tehri Garhwal vide his letter 12.01/29-3(3) dated 16.11.2024 had furnished a detailed report in the present matter. Copy of the report dated 16.11.2024, furnished by the Divisional Forest Officer Narendra Nagar Forest Division Muni-Ki-Reti, Tehri Garhwal are already on record.

¶165

O. A. No. 961/2024 Nitin Dev Vs. & State of Uttarakhand & Ors. -21-

¶166

4. That as per the report dated 16.11.2024, furnished by the Divisional Forest Officer Narendra Nagar Forest Division Muni-Ki-Reti, Tehri Garhwal, some of the essential facts are quoted here for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Tribunal as follows:

¶167

¶168

b) That in compliance with the order dated 17.09.2024 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal, on 25.09.2024 a joint inspection was carried out of lease no. 52 by a joint team of Revenue and Forest Department. According to the joint inspection report, the total area of leased forest land was found to be 0.4146 Ha, which is 0.257 Ha more than the sanctioned lease area.

¶169

¶170

¶171

O. A. No. 961/2024 Nitin Dev Vs. & State of Uttarakhand & Ors. -22-

¶172

e) That in condition number-2 of the lease renewal sanction order, it is mentioned that 'even after being leased, the forest land in question will be used by the said proposer only for the stated purpose and the said land or any part of it will not be transferred to any other department, institution or person'. Thus, it is clear that the lease no. 52 in question cannot be transferred to any other department, institution or person. It is noteworthy that the original lease holder Swami Vivekanand Das died on 28.06.2011, using the lease/reserved forest area in question after his death falls under the category of illegal encroachment, which is a violation of Section 20 of the Indian Forest (Uttarakhand Amendment) Act, 2001 and the provisions of the Forest Protection Act, 1980.

¶173

f) That the Government of Uttarakhand vide letter no. 1125/X-3-21/2(04)2018, dated 14.09.2021 (Annexure-05) has formulated a policy for renewal of leases given on forest land and approval of new leases. In paragraph no. 3.3.3 of the said policy, it has been mentioned that 'Forest land given on lease, whose leaseholder has not used the forest land himself but has sold it to any other person or has sublet/transferred it under any agreement, such leases will not be renewed and the Forest Department/Revenue Department will get the forest land vacated and take it in its possession and criminal cases will be registered against the lessee under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and Forest Protection Act, 1980'. Thus, it is clear that the original leaseholder Swami Vivekanand Das died on 28.06.2011. and using the leased/reserved forest area in question after his death is a violation of Section 26 of the Indian Forest (Uttarakhand Amendment) Act, 2001 and the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.

¶174

¶175

O. A. No. 961/2024 Nitin Dev Vs. & State of Uttarakhand & Ors. -23-

¶176

the Indian Forest (Uttarakhand Amendment) Act, 2001.

¶177

5. That the office of the deponent has taken appropriate action against the illegal encroachment. The copy of the same are annexed herewith for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Tribunal as Annexure A.

¶178

6. That the State Government has been vigilant on the issue of encroachment on the Forest land for last more than one year and the Government had also launched campaign to remove the encroachments from the forest land across the State. With regard to the present matter, detailed directions have already been issued to the department and the eviction process is being carried out by the department in accordance with law in the present matter.”

¶179

The applicant filed I.A. No. 182/2025 for leave to engage Counsel which was allowed vide order dated 21.03.2025.

¶180

The applicant filed rejoinder affidavit dated 19.02.2025 stating that in order to comply the order dated 23.12.2024 of this Tribunal, respondent no. 5 had filed reply dated 30.01.2025 which contained misleading facts. Paragraph No. 5 of the Compliance Report on behalf of the District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal, based on the Joint Committee's findings clearly specifies that the land in question was found to be in illegal possession of respondent no. 5. Respondent no. 5 gave evasive reply to the queries of this Tribunal by stating that only 0.1566 hectare is built up area and the rest is open area without elucidating as to whether the open area is being used by respondent no. 5 in any manner or not. Respondent No. 5 has also failed to mention that he is in illegal possession of the alleged area of forest land. Response affidavit filed by the Additional Secretary, Forest and Environment, Government of Uttarakhand

¶181

O. A. No. 961/2024 Nitin Dev Vs. & State of Uttarakhand & Ors. -24-

¶182

shows that respondent no. 5 is in illegal possession of the said land since 2011 and as per Letter No. 1125/X-3-21/2(04)2018 dated 14.09.2021, the land under lease No. 52 needs to be vacated as per the provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Respondent no. 5 failed to witness the fact that the said Lease was initially given to Swami Vivekananda and thereafter, there is no renewal of the same in the name of respondent no. 5. In the reports submitted by the state authorities it has been mentioned that respondent no. 5 being in illegal possession of the land in question is using the same for commercial purposes. Even if it is admitted for the sake of argument that respondent no. 5 has not illegally encroached more land than the area mentioned in the Lease No. 52, respondent no. 5 is still not legally authorized to be in possession of the land therein. Moreover, the huge so called Ashram allegedly build up in 0.1566 ha falls within the flood plain zone and is violative of the Uttarakhand Flood Plain Zoning Act,2012 and the notifications passed under it. The boring and construction of Septic tank was carried out by respondent no. 5 on the encroached forest land outside the premises of so called ashram/resort being ran by respondent no. 5.

¶183

Response affidavit was filed by respondent no. 4- Divisional Forest Officer, Tehri, Uttarakhand seeking to place on record notice number 2045/29-3(3) dated 07.02.2025 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Narendra Nagar Forest Division directing respondent no. 5 to vacate the encroached forest land by 16.02.2025. The relevant part of Annexure A is reproduced as under:-

¶184

O. A. No. 961/2024 Nitin Dev Vs. & State of Uttarakhand & Ors. -25-

¶185

“ आप अवगत हैकि किवपुरीरेंज िेअन्तगगत लीज संख्या -52 ब्रहमपुरी िक्षसंख्या -52 आरकक्षत वनक्षेत्रमें 0.4146 हेक्टयेरवन भूकम मेंअवैध अध्यासन िेसंबंध मेंअधोहस्ताक्षरीिेिायागलयमेंबेदखलीवादसंख्या - 02 सन् 2024 अन्तगगत धारा -61 ि भारतीय वन ( उत्तरांचल संिोधन ) अकधकनयम , 2001 िेतहतकवचाराधीनहै।उक्तबेदखलीवादमेंकदनांि 05.02.2025 िोसुनवाईिेदौरानआपिेद्वारास्वामीकववेिानन्ददास िे नाम लीज संख्या -52 स्वीिृत क्षेत्र 0.2089 से अकधि किये गये अकतक्रमणवनभूकमिोकदनांि 16.02.2025 तिस्वयंखालीिरनेहेतु सहमकतप्रदानएवंप्रार्गनापत्रप्रस्ु त कियागयार्ा।

¶186

अतः आपिोकनदेकित किया जाता हैकि आप कनयत समय अवकध ति प्रश्नगत्अकतक्रमणिोस्वयंखालीिरदेंवेअन्यर्ािीस्थिकतकवभागद्वारा अग्रेत्तरिायगवाहीिीजायेगी।

¶187

I.A. No. 183/2025 was filed by the applicant seeking fresh investigations/measurements of the impugned premises on the ground of there being contradictions in the averments made in the affidavit of respondent no. 4 and reply filed by respondent no. 5. The relevant part of the I.A. No. 183/2025 is reproduced below:-

¶188

“ APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT SEEKING FRESH INVESTIGATION/MEASUREMENT OF THE IMPUGNED PREMISES. X X X X

¶189

7. That it is quite surprising that the forest officials on one hand, while submitting their response affidavit, state that the encroached area has been taken into possession and on the other hand have requested the Respondent No. 5 to vacate the land as per his undertaking, whereas Respondent No. 5 in his own affidavit has falsely stated that he is not in position of any excess land apart from what was granted on lease to the original lease holder i.e. Swami Vivekananda Das.

¶190

8. That it would further be pertinent to mention that Respondent No. 5, while running the commercial activity, evidences of which were already submitted before this Tribunal vide the Rejoinder Affidavit, has submitted a false affidavit before this Hon'ble Tribunal.

¶191

9. That a cursory glance over the bird eye view attached as Annexure No. 1 to this application, obtained via the help of Google Earth Pro would clearly evince that 0.44 hectare land has been possessed by Respondent No.

¶192

O. A. No. 961/2024 Nitin Dev Vs. & State of Uttarakhand & Ors. -26-

¶193

5, wherein Two suite AC rooms, One Big kitchen, One storeroom and dining area, 8AC rooms, One big Yoga hall, AC dormitory with approximately 16 beds, Seven non-AC rooms, Six luxury AC rooms, and garden along with outside dining is present. The Respondent No. 5, if asked by this Hon'ble Tribunal, would not be able to deny the same because all thee things still exist in the resort being run in the name of Respondent No. 5.

¶194

10. That on page No. 105 of the record of this Hon'ble Tribunal, an inspection report carried out by officials of Pollution control board, Forest department as well as district Magistrate Tehri Garhwal is present wherein the 2nd bullet point clearly mentions that the impugned lease is in the name of Swami Vivekananda Das, however, he has expired in the year 2011. Further it is mentioned in paragraph No. 4 that the Respondent No. 5 is in possession of excess land than what was granted in the lease. Further in the point No. 5, it is mentioned that there is no sewage treatment plant and the septic tank has been made near to the river Ganga.

¶195

11. That further, it has also been mentioned that there is no arrangement for the disposal of waste and in point No. 8 it has been mentioned that while charging tariffs from domestic and foreigner tourists, the property is being used for commercial purposes, which is a clear violation of the lease that was originally given to Vivekananda Das, and which is being illegally used by the respondent No. 5. Further, it is also relevant to state that there is no fire safety arrangements in the premises nor the Respondent No. 5 has obtained any food license. 12. It is also been highlighted for the sake of repetition that residential cottages and teen sheds have been constructed that are lying in the flood Plain zone and are at a distance of only 63 meter from the middle of river Ganga.

¶196

13. It would also be pertinent to mention that on page number 109 of the record of the Tribunal, it has been explicitly mentioned that respondent number five is violating the provisions of water prevention and control of pollution act, 1974 as well as Air prevention and control of pollution act 1981. It is also very clearly mentioned that Respondent No. 5 has not obtained any consent under provisions of Air and Water act because of which this Hon'ble Tribunal directly has a jurisdiction to deal with the violations being made by Respondent No. 5.

¶197

14. That all the other mentioned facts clearly evince that respondent number five and respondent number 4 have submitted contradictory statements in light of which the applicant requests before this court to order a fresh inspection along with measurements being done of the land in possession of respondent number 5 so that air can be cleared as to what is the actual status on the project proponent's site. It is also prayed that actions be also taken against the illegally continued commercial activity

¶198

O. A. No. 961/2024 Nitin Dev Vs. & State of Uttarakhand & Ors. -27-

¶199

of the Respondent Nol. 5 on the land which is not even leased in their name and on which they are in illegal possession”

¶200

This Tribunal observed in its order dated 21.03.2025 that I.A. No. 183/2025 is in the nature of objections to the replies/reports filed by respondents no. 4 and 5 and the same will be considered alongwith the entire material on record.

¶201

We have heard the applicant and learned Counsel for the respondents and gone through the material on records carefully.

¶202

The material facts and circumstances emerging from/proved by the material on record may be noticed as under:-

¶203

(i) lease no. 52 for 0.2089 ha forest land in the reserved forest Brahmapuri compartment number-1 under Shivpuri range was renewed/sanctioned in the name of Vivekanand Das for cottage/kutiya purpose for 30 years under the prescribed conditions by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, vide letter No.

¶204

B/Uttaranchal/09/137/ 2001/FC/220 dated 18.06.2001 and by Uttaranchal Government, Forest and Environment, vide letter No. 303/7-1-2001-800/1999 dated 30.07.2001;

¶205

(ii) the original lease holder Swami Vivekananda Das (Udayraj Singh) S/o Bhagwant Singh died on 28.06.2011 and since his death, Prem Chaitanya is in possession of the said leased forest area; and

¶206

O. A. No. 961/2024 Nitin Dev Vs. & State of Uttarakhand & Ors. -28-

¶207

(iii) in compliance with the order dated 17.09.2024 passed by this Tribunal on 24.09.2024 a joint inspection was carried out of lease no. 52 by a joint team of Revenue and Forest Department and as per the joint inspection report, the total area of leased/ forest land in possession of Prem Chaitanya was found to be 0.4146 ha, which is 0.2057 ha more than the sanctioned lease area 0.2089 ha.

¶208

The stand of respondents no. 1 and 4 is that in condition number-2 of the lease renewal sanction order, it is mentioned that even after being leased, the forest land in question will be used by the said proposer only for the stated purpose and the said land or any part of it will not be transferred to any other department, institution or person. The Government of Uttarakhand vide letter no. 1125/X-3-21/2(04)2018, dated 14.09.2021 has formulated a policy for renewal of leases given on forest land and approval of new leases. In paragraph no. 3.3.3 of the said policy, it has been mentioned that 'Forest land given on lease, whose leaseholder has not used the forest land himself but has sold it to any other person or has sublet/transferred it under any agreement, such leases will not be renewed and the Forest Department/Revenue Department will get the forest land vacated and take it in its possession and criminal cases will be registered against the lessee under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The original lease holder Swami Vivekanand Das died on 28.06.2011. User of the lease/reserved forest area in question after death of Swami Vivekanand Das by Prem Chaitanya falls under the category of illegal encroachment being in violation of Section 20 and 26 of the Indian

¶209

O. A. No. 961/2024 Nitin Dev Vs. & State of Uttarakhand & Ors. -29-

¶210

Forest (Uttaranchal Amendment) Act, 2001 and the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Vide letter no. 1017/29-3 dated 24.10.2024 notice was issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Narendra Nagar Forest Division under Section-61A of the Indian Forest (Uttaranchal Amendment) Act, 2001 requiring the lessee to submit his stand/counter reply on the matter. In relation to the encroachment in question, Forest range Officer, Shivpuri Range has registered Rajivad (case) No. 09/Shivpuri/2024-25 under relevant forest laws against Prem Chaitanya. Eviction proceedings have been initiated at the Division Level under Section 61A of the Indian Forest (Uttaranchal Amendment) Act, 2001.

¶211

On the other-hand the stand of respondent no. 5 is that lease was granted to 10 Sadhus including Sadhu Janki Jiwan Das on 22.11.1965. The lease subsequently devolved in the spiritual lineage from Sadhu Janki Jiwan Das to his disciple Sadhu Vivekanand Das and subsequently the lease got renewed in year 2001 in his name. On 26.07.2008 Sadhu Vivekanand Das (real name Udayraj Singh) created a religious trust named Sri Janki Kutiya Dharmarth Trust in the name of his guru which has four trustees including Sadhu Vivekanand and present managing trustee Swami Prem Chaitanya. After death of Sadhu Vivekanand Das on 16.08.2019 Swami Prem Chaitanya made an application to the DFO Narendra Nagar, Tehri Garhwal for change of user name for the forest lease from Swami Vivekanand to his name. Reminder to the said application was also sent on 30.11.2019, but the said application is still pending consideration and Swami Prem Chaitanya cannot be said to be in illegal possession of the leased land.

¶212

O. A. No. 961/2024 Nitin Dev Vs. & State of Uttarakhand & Ors. -30-

¶213

So far as the leased land measuring 0.2089 ha is concerned, the question of change of user name in respect of the above said leased land in favour of Swami Prem Chaitanya has to be decided by the concerned authorities on the applications pending with them and consequent thereto the question of legality/illegality of possession of Swami Prem Chaitanya over leased land has to be decided in Rajivad (case) No. 09/Shivpuri/2024-25 and eviction proceedings under Section 61A of the Indian Forest (Uttaranchal Amendment) Act, 2001 and appropriate orders have to be passed by the concerned authorities/officers. In view of the relevant statutory provisions referred to herein above, the adjudication of the questions regarding encroachment on forest land and removal thereof does not lie within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal and no intervention in this regard by this Tribunal at this stage is warranted.

¶214

However, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and for protection of forest land and protection and improvement of environment, the concerned authorities are directed to dispose of the abovesaid application and Rajivad (case) No. 09/Shivpuri/2024-25 and eviction proceedings under Section 61A of the Indian Forest (Uttaranchal Amendment) Act, 2001 expeditiously preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶215

So far as the question of forest land measuring 0.2057 ha alleged to have been encroached upon by respondent no. 5 is concerned, in its reply respondent no. 5 has categorically stated that respondent no. 5 is in possession of leased land measuring 0.2089 ha only and respondent no. 5 has denied its possession over the

¶216

O. A. No. 961/2024 Nitin Dev Vs. & State of Uttarakhand & Ors. -31-

¶217

same. The applicant has claimed that respondent no. 5 has raised the construction on encroached forest land measuring 0.2057 ha as per notice issued vide letter no. 2045/29-3(3) dated 07.02.2025. Respondent no. 5 had undertaken in the eviction proceedings no. 2 of 2024 under Section 61A of the Indian Forest (Uttaranchal Amendment) Act, 2001 to vacate 0.2057 ha forest land other than leased land measuring 0.2089 ha on which opportunity was thereby given to respondent no. 5 to remove encroachment by 16.02.2025.

¶218

The Divisional Forest Officer, Narender Nagar, Forest Division, Muni-Ki-Reti, Tehri Garhwal is directed to verify the factual position as to removal of encroachment over forest land measuring 0.2057 ha and in case respondent no. 5 has not removed the encroachment to expedite the disposal of eviction proceedings and evict respondent no. 5 therefrom expeditiously preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶219

In his reply, the District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal had mentioned that UKPCB had issued notice no UKPCB/ROD/NGT121/2024-25/2581-1325 dated 13.11.2024, Food Safety and Drug Officer, Tehri Garhwal had issued notice no. dated 13.11.2024, Fire Safety Officer, Narender Nagar had issued notice no. FS/NA/2023 dated 13.11.2024, District Supply Officer, Tehri Garhwal had issued notice no. 865/40-29/PETO/2024-2025 dated 14.11.2024 to respondent no. 5.

¶220

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and for protection of forest land and protection and improvement of environment UKPCB, Food Safety and Drug Officer, Tehri Garhwal,

¶221

O. A. No. 961/2024 Nitin Dev Vs. & State of Uttarakhand & Ors. -32-

¶222

Fire Safety Officer, Narender Nagar and District Supply Officer, Tehri Garhwal are directed to take appropriate action on the above said notices expeditiously preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶223

The District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal is directed to monitor the action by above said authorities/officers and file action taken report within one month after expiry of period of six month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the Ld. Registrar General, National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi who may, if necessary, put up the matter before the Bench for further directions.

¶224

O.A. No. 961/2024 and I.A. No. 183/2025 are disposed of accordingly with directions as mentioned above.

¶225

A copy of this order be sent to the applicant and the respondents by email for requisite compliance.

¶226

Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM

¶227

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶228

May 26^th , 2025 Original Application No.961/2024 (I.A. No. 183/2025) AG

Nitin Dev vs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Dev 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vipin Kumar Saxena vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Karan Sonone vs Union of India

News Item Titled "Marble Waste Creates Mirage of Now in Rajasthan,S Kishangarh Poses Long Term Risks" Appearing in the Hidnu Dated 13.04.2025. vs

Anand Hooda vs Haryana State Pollution Control Board

Samir Malo vs State of West Bengal

News Item Titled Cag Faults Citys Waste Processing Appearing in the Shillong Times Dated 16 09 2024 vs Meghalaya Pollution Control Board

Sumit Saini vs Burma Boards

Sumit Saini vs Shree Ram Steel Industries

News Item Titled "India Lost 2.33 Million Hectares of Tree Cover Since 2000 Global Forest Watch" Appearing in the Indian Express Date 13.04.2024. vs

News Item Titled "India Lost 2.33 Million Hectares of Tree Cover Since 2000 Global Forest Watch" Appearing in the Indian Express Date 13.04.2024. vs

Sukhbir Singh vs Union of India

Hassina Wajid (Sarpanch) vs State of Jammu & Kashmir

Tamilnadu Fly Ash Brick and Blocks Manufacturers Association vs Union of India