Disposed

Rajendra Tiwari v. Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change Government of India

NGT20 May 2026IA No. 110/2024 in Original Application No. 61/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal examined an application alleging encroachment on Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary forest land. Relying on a Joint Committee report, the court found the units operated outside the sanctuary and forest boundaries. Pending demarcation by revenue authorities and high court orders, the application was disposed of without imposing penalties.

What the court decided

AI extract

Rajendra Tiwari vs Union of India through the Secretary… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.07

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CENTRAL ZONE BENCH, BHOPAL (THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION) Original Application No.61/2024(CZ) (I.A. No.110/2024)

¶3

Rajendra Tiwari Applicant(s)

¶4

Vs.

¶5

Union of India & Ors. Respondent(s) Date of Hearing: 20.05.2026

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE MR. SUDHIR KUMAR CHATURVEDI, EXPERT MEMBER

¶7

For Applicant (s): Mr. Vaibhav Pancholy, Adv. with Krishan Sharma, Adv. & Ms. Akansha Pancholy, Adv.

¶8

For Respondent(s) : Dr. Sapna Agarwal, Adv, for MoEF&CC Mr. Tanishq Jhaveri, Adv. with Ms. Simran Sharma, Adv. & Mr. Divyanshu Gupta, Adv. for R-11

¶9

ORDER

¶10

This application has been filed with the following prayer: -

¶11

i. By an appropriate order or direction, the Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to issue the appropriate directions to Respondents as to stoppage of non-forest activities, illegal construction upon forest landmore particularly land of Khasra No. 5621 at Village Amerand existing non-forest activities be defenestrated forthwith.

¶12

ii. This Hon'ble Tribunal is further pleased to issue appropriate directions to Respondents to defenestrate encroachment subsisting upon reserved forest land situated in Khasra No. 5621 at Village Amer and operation of illegal and non-forest activities in commercial establishment situated upon Khasra No.5621 be stopped forthwith.

¶13

¶14

O.A. No.61/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶15

iii. Respondents be further directed to stop the construction of commercial nature which is being done upon Khasra No.88 of Village Nahargarh by Respondent No. 16 and 17 and existing construction be demolished with an immediate effect being illegal and arbitrary in nature.

¶16

iv. Respondents be further directed to defenestrate/remove the encroachment made in form of warehouse by Respondent No. 16 and 17 upon Khasra No. 169 of Village Nahargarh and they may also be directed to take appropriate action against Respondent No.16 and 17 for causing Pollution.

¶17

v. Forest Authorities may be directed to put a board of Forest department upon the Land of Khasra No's5621 of Village Amer and Khasra No. 169 at Village Nahargarh and make other arrangements in order to prevent the forest land from encroachment and Encroached Land from these Khasras be restored back in record in the name of forest department andpossession of said land be handed over to Forest Department forthwith.

¶18

vi. Respondents be directed to make sure that there shall be no illegal and non-forest activities upon forest land of Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary and also within Eco Sensitive Zone and Operation of commercial establishments of Respondent No.16 and 17 including warehouse may kindly be ceased during the pendency of this original application.

¶19

vii. Respondents be further directed to ensure that no further constriction and other activities will be operated within Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary without obtainment of requisite permissions.

¶20

¶21

O.A. No.61/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶22

viii. Respondents be directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against private Respondents.

¶23

ix. This Hon'ble Tribunal is further pleased to impose heavy penalty upon the culprits.

¶24

Notices were issued to the Respondent to submit the reply. Reply has been filed. During the proceeding before this Tribunal a Joint Committee was constituted consisting the members of the Forest Department, Revenue Department and State Pollution Control Board to visit the site and submit the Factual and Action Taken Report. The members of the Committee visited the site and submitted the report.

¶25

We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶26

The submission of the Learned Counsel for the Applicant is that the Government of Rajasthan has issued an order with regard to the Nahargarh Village as a reserved forest and necessary notifications were issued in 1961 and later on in 1980. It is further submitted that Govt. of India has also issued a gazette notification on 08/03/2019 by which the Eco- Sensitive Zone of Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary got declared and that Eco- Senstive Zone shall be from 0-13 Kms. around the Sanctuary Boundaires of Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary. It is also submitted. By the way of notification dated 08/03/2019, some essential activities for local residents were allowed and rest of the commercial activities were prohibited. It is submitted that the bare perusal of the notification dated 08/03/2019 goes to reveal that there are three classes of activities mentioned therein, the A Clause is about Prohibited Activities, B Clause is about Regulated Activities and C Clause is about Promoted Activities.

¶27

¶28

O.A. No.61/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶29

It is further argued that initially the Khasra Nos. 6440, 6443 and 6444 were recorded in the name of forest department as reserved forest land and measurement of all three Khasras was 9.56 Hectare That these Khasras got replaced by New Khasra No. 5621 as per Milan Khestrphal and the measurement was same i.e. 9.56 Hectare. The perusal of Jamabandi of Samvat 2076 goes to show that Khasra No.5621 found to be recorded in the name of forest department as Gair Mumkin Pahad and same is part of Vankhand Amer 54 and Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary but the measurement of above Khasra is less than it is found in the Milan Khestraphal and initial Jamabandi of Revenue Department. As per recent Jamabandi the measurement of above Khasra No. 5621 is 8.40 Hectare thus apparently the 1.16 Hectare reserved forest land is found to be less in Recent Jamabandi. One question arises after perusal of relevant revenue record as to where the 1.16 Hectare Reserved Forest land has gone, the answer to this question can be seen from another Jamabandi of Khasra No.5621/1 and the measurement of the same is 1.16 Hectare and thus the Khasra No. 5621 got divided by revenue authorities without there being authority from forest department and consequently another Khasra No.5621/1 came into existence and same is found to be recorded in the name of One Institution M.E.O. and Applicant made his efforts to get relevant information about said institution M.E.O. but revenue authorities has not any knowledge about the same and Applicant has also moved an application under R.T.I. for coming to know about said institution but no response was given and also he pursued the same by approaching revenue authorities and It has been replied by revenue authorities vide letter dated 02/01/2023 (as mentioned) that no record is available in their

¶30

¶31

O.A. No.61/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶32

office qua M.E.O. institution. The existence or non-existence of this institution would be irrelevant in present case as admittedly and apparently the reserved forest land has been misappropriated and indirectly deserved for commercial purposes which is clear violation of Section 2 of Forest Conservation Act, 1980.

¶33

That Khasra No.88 of Village Nahargarh has been recorded in the name of State Government and the nature of the land is revenue however it is described area of Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary and at present upon this Khasra No. 88 new construction of commercial nature is being done without obtainment of any authority form forest department and being the part of Wildlife Sanctuary the Wildlife Clearance is mandatory for any type of material construction and operation of commercial activities, in absentia of authority from forest department and wildlife clearance the construction and operation of illegal activities is per-se illegal.

¶34

Another Khasra No.169 was initially recorded in the name of forest department being the part of Vankhad Amer 54 and Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary and upon this Khasra No.169 one warehouse belonging to Respondent No. 16 and 17 is present and commercial activities in this warehouse also are in operation without there being any authority from forest department and Rajasthan state pollution control board. Subsequently said Khasra No. 169 of forest department got divided and Khasra No.169/2 which was arose from Original Khasra No. 169, found to be recorded in the name of Jaipur Development Authority in absolutely vague and arbitrary manner and again the reserved forest land has been misappropriated and indirectly deserved the reserved forest land without any authorization from forest department and central government and said warehouse

¶35

¶36

O.A. No.61/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶37

has been located between pillar no. 388 to 389 of Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary.

¶38

It is further contended that Forester Naka Kala Mahadev had registered an FIR against private Respondent no.17 on 05/03/2024, who is owner/controller of commercial establishment named Handicraft Haveli and it has been stated in FIR that he had cut off 3 green trees (15 years old) situated upon reserved forest land of Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary and cutting of big trees can be seen from photographs.

¶39

That Assistant Conservator of Forests in its factual report dated 19/06/2023 appraised the responsible authority of Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board about the non-forest activities and Pollution qua Respondent No.16 and 17 but nothing has been done by Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board in present matter so far.

¶40

It is further submitted that the activities which are being operated by Respondent No.16 and 17 are not only violation of Forest laws but simultaneously they are huge source of Pollution for local wildlife and local residents residing in described area and equally they are hazardous for environment as in any means they are not in consonance with environment hence all these activities be stopped forthwith being non forest in nature in view of Section 2 of Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and also the activities by which the pollution being caused be ordered to be stopped with immediate effect and private Respondents has not any Authority under Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution), Act 1981 and Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution), Act 1974.

¶41

Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2,4,5,6 & 7 has submitted that that, as per the records, 51 bighas and 12 biswas of Khasra No.

¶42

¶43

O.A. No.61/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶44

6440, 44 bighas and 1 biswa of Khasra No. 6443, and 27 bighas and 9 biswas of Khasra No. 6444, situated in Village Amer, are part of the declared reserved forest, known as Amer-54. These Khasras have now been converted into new Khasra Nos. 5619, 5620, 5621, 5621/1, and 5621/9105. Khasra No. 5621/1, measuring 1.16 hectares, has been allotted to MEO as per the Jamabandi records. This allotment is in violation of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, and the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953. According to the provisions of these Acts and the guidelines provided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, forest land cannot be converted for non-forestry purposes without following the procedures prescribed under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. The Deputy Conservator of Forests (Zoo & Wildlife), Jaipur, has written to the District Collector, Jaipur, seeking mutation of the land in favor of the Forest Department.

¶45

However, it falls within the Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) of the Nahargarh Sanctuary. As per the report submitted in O.A. No. 153/2024, the entire village of Nahargarh is part of the Nahargarh Sanctuary, and no new construction for commercial activities is permitted under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. FIR No. 23/07 dated 28.05.2024 has been registered against Sh. Anil Khandelwal, owner of Handicrafts Haveli (Respondent No. 17), for illegal construction in the Nahargarh Sanctuary area.

¶46

It is submitted that part of Khasra No. 169 of Village Nahargarh, measuring 1 bigha and 19 biswas, is a part of the Amer-54 Reserve Forest, which is also a part of the Nahargarh Sanctuary. No commercial activities are being conducted on the forest land of Khasra No. 169. A detailed survey was conducted by a surveyor on 16.07.2024 based on the available records. The survey report

¶47

¶48

O.A. No.61/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶49

indicates that the part of Khasra No. 169, which is forest land, lies within the boundaries marked by Forest Boundary Pillars No. 388 and 389. The commercial godown is located approximately 19 meters away from the forest boundary. Further, it is submitted that Khasra No. 169 is not within the Nahargarh Sanctuary according to the ESZ map and the letter issued to Trident Hotel by the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Zoo. However, it is within the ESZ of the Nahargarh Sanctuary. The portion of Khasra No. 169 classified as forest land has not been mutated in the name of the Forest Department, despite several communications by the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Zoo, to the District Collector, Jaipur, requesting the mutation. FIR No. 23/07 dated 28.05.2024 has been registered against Anil Khandelwal, s/o Late Shri Jai Kishan Das Khandelwal, for encroachment on forest land under Section 34A of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, based on the report submitted in O.A. No. 153/2024, stating that the entire village of Nahargarh falls within the Nahargarh Sanctuary.

¶50

Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.09 Department of Electricity has submitted that on receipt of the application for a connectivity of the electricity in the year 2002, it was connected according to rules.

¶51

Submission of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 16 & 17 are that Assistant Conservator of Nahargarh wildlife sanctuary Jaipur took cognizance of the violations and passed an order dated 24^th July 2024 and this order has been challenged before the Competent Civil Court and Civil Suit No.370 of 2024 is pending.

¶52

Members of the Joint Committee visited the site and submitted the report as follows: -

¶53

Observations

¶54

i. Matter relates to the retail outlet of unit M/s Handicraft Haveli located on Khasra No. 88 engaged in sale of

¶55

¶56

O.A. No.61/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶57

Handicraft items and unit's godown located on Khasra No. 169 engaged in finishing and packing of handicraft items which were visited by the joint committee members.

¶58

ii. At retail outlet of the unit located on Khasra No. 88 sale of the handicraft items being done with arrangement for demonstration activity of carpet manufacturing and block printing. No source of air or water pollution was observed except domestic waste water from approx. 6 labours from the premises. Retail outlet of the unit does not require to obtain consent from the State Board.

¶59

iii. At godown of the unit at Khasra No. 169, activities of finishing and packing of handicraft items were being carried out. No source of air or water pollution were observed except domestic waste water from approx. 6 labours from the premises. Unit requires to obtain consent under the provisions of the Air Act, 1981 and/or the Water Act, 1974 from the State Board.

¶60

iv. That as per categorization of industrial units by the State Board, Handicrafts units without furnace and surface treatment is covered under Green category and operating within the Eco Sensitive zone of the Nahargarh Wild Life Sanctuary, therefore, show cause notice has been issued on 13.01.2025 (Copy enclosed at Annexure- 2) to the unit located at Khasra No. 169 for operating without valid consent from the State Board, under the provisions of the Air Act, 1981 and the Water Act, 1974.

¶61

v.Status of location of both premises were verified on 16.07.2024 by the concerned persons of Forest Department and it was observed that both the premises falls outside the Forest Boundaries (Copy of Mauka Inspection Report enclosed at Annexure-3). As per the representative of Forest Department in the joint committee, both the premises also falls outside the Nahargarh Wild Life Sanctuary notified on 22.09.1980 and within the Eco Sensitive zone notified on 08.03.2019 of the Nahargarh Wild Life Sanctuary.

¶62

vi. That Zonal Master Plan of the Nahargarh Wild Life Sanctuary has been approved by the State Government which inter-alia says as under: -

¶63

"10.4Existing Activity/Use

¶64

ESZ Notification dated 08-03-2019 prescribed regulations regarding new hotel, resort, commercial 9

¶65

O.A. No.61/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶66

establishments, etc. This leads to the requirement of defining what is "existing."

¶67

For purpose of ZMP for the ESZ, hotels, resorts, commercial establishments, etc. shall be considered as existing if they have any of the following issued prior to 08.03.2019 ESZ Notification of Nahargarh:

¶68

1. Electricity connection for non-agricultural use.

¶69

2. Approval by Tourism Department as tourism unit.

¶70

3.Conversion order/Pattu for non-agricultural use.

¶71

4. Building Plan approval.

¶72

5. Order regarding change in land use.

¶73

6. Proof of deposition of tax as hotel, resort, commercial establishment,

¶74

etc.

¶75

7. CTE/CTO/Environmental Clearance."

¶76

vii. That as per the circular dated 26.09.2023 issued from Forest, Environment & Climate Change Department, Govt. of Rajasthan regarding clarification of Hotels, resorts etc. which would be considered "existing" which are having any of the 07 listed documents (as mentioned above) prior to issue of Notification of that ESZ. Copy of the circular enclosed and marked as Annexure-4.

¶77

viii. That according to above, the unit have 02 documents from the above list (Listed at Sr. No. 1 and 6) issued prior to 08.03.2019 and the documents are attached and collectively marked as Annexure-5.

¶78

Accordingly, the establishment was in existence prior to issuance of the Notification dated 08.03.2019 defining ESZ of the NWLS.

¶79

ix. Handicrafts units without furnace and surface treatment does not require to obtain Environmental Clearance under the provisions of the EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006 and, accordingly, unit does not require to obtain Wild Life clearance from NBWL. Besides, there are so many other multi storied buildings in this area and other residential and commercial activities also being carried out in the area.

¶80

x. As per the representative of Forest Department, a meeting was convened under the chairmanship of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Chief Wild Life Warden, Rajasthan, Jaipur on 07.01.2025, in that meeting, map of Nahargarh Wild

¶81

¶82

O.A. No.61/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶83

Life Sanctuary, as mentioned in its ESZ Notification dated 08.03.2019 was viewed vis-à-vis the coordinates of the points of the sanctuary and found that there are discrepancies w.r.t. the points of the sanctuary boundaries which need to be rectified. Accordingly, it was unanimously decided in the meeting that DCF (WL), Zoo, Jaipur shall superimpose the map of the Sanctuary as mentioned in the Sanctuary Notification dated 22.09.1980 on the digital revenue khasra map. The DCF shall submit such detailed WLS & ESZ overlaid on digital revenue khasra superimposed map. This rectified map will be submitted before the committee to finalize after evaluation & approval of committee of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Chief Wild Life Warden, Rajasthan. Such proposed rectified map shall be forwarded to the State Government for approval. Copy of the Minutes of Meeting dated 07.01.2025 enclosed and marked as Annexure-6.

¶84

xi. Photographs taken during the site visit are enclosed and collectively marked as Annexure-7.

¶85

Conclusion

¶86

(i) Unit is being operated outside Forest area and outside of the Nahargarh Wild Life Sanctuary and within ESZ of the sanctuary without valid consent from the State Board, therefore, a show cause notice has been issued from the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board on 13.01.2025 and further action as per rules shall be taken.

¶87

(ii) Unit does not require to obtain Environmental Clearance under the provisions of the EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006 and, accordingly, unit does not require to obtain Wild Life clearance from NBWL.

¶88

The perusal of the report which has been examined and signed by the Deputy Conservator of Forest Wild Life Zoo, Jaipur, makes it clear that unit is being operated outside the frost area and outside of the Nahargarh wildlife sanctuary. It is further submitted that Environmental Clearance under the EIA notification is not required.

¶89

It is argued that the subject matter, is of revenue proceeding regarding identification and demarcation of the land and vide order

¶90

¶91

O.A. No.61/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶92

dated 18.03.2024 this Tribunal observed and directed the authorities concerned as follows: -

¶93

1. The repeated petitions filed before this tribunal for protection of Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary and compliance of guidelines and notification issued by the MoEF&CC, that too on the basis of departmental communication from one official to another official of the Forest Department discloses and reveal inter departmental dispute and rivalry, which further depicts that the Forest Department deputed to protect the Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary are either unable to protect the Wildlife Sanctuary and to enforce the guidelines and notification issued by the MoEF&CC or directly or indirectly involved in permitting for construction of Hotel and Resorts for commercial purposes in violation of notification and environmental rules. The contention of the enquiry report (enquiry officer) that the Regional Forest Officer or the Forest Officials are not cooperating in protection of the wildlife sanctuary or commercial activities within the wildlife sanctuary without the sanction of the Competent Authority and wildlife clearance, shows that the facts are within the knowledge of local officials but they are not taking legal necessary actions and providing this information to the private players for generation of litigation instead of protecting the forest land.

¶94

2. Accordingly, in view of the above facts before further proceedings, we deem it just and proper to direct the Addl. Chief Secretary, Forest and Wildlife, Government of Rajasthan and Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Government of Rajasthan to see the matter personally and to submit the factual and action taken report. The copy of the report submitted by Assistant Conservator of Forest addressed to higher authorities with the copy of this order be sent to the above official with the request to see the matter as contained in the enquiry report, which is annexure-10 in file (in O.A. No. 61/2024 (CZ) and same annexure in another O.A.). We further direct that the notification and guidelines issued by the MoEF&CC and the rules of the Forest Act and Environmental Rules must be strictly observed and the Nahargarh Sanctuary must be protected from the encroachment, immediate action must be taken. The 12

¶95

O.A. No.61/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶96

identification, demarcation and protection with the pillars and wires must be taken immediately and an explanation may be called from the District Level Officer of the Forest Department and the Wildlife Sanctuary as to why they have not taken care of the notification of the protected area and who is responsible for violation of these rules. If there are any construction, then the responsible official of the District in whose tenure that constructions was initiated must be taken into a account and further action should be initiated according to rules. The primary purpose of the notification and guidelines are to protect the Eco Sensitive Zone and wildlife sanctuary, which is required to be implemented and enforced immediately and further action taken report must be filed within two months.

¶97

In light of the above orders the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest constitute a meeting on 07.01.2025 with the officials and considered the updation of the map of the Nahargarh wildlife in accordance with GPS coordinates and to finalize it.

¶98

Submission and argument of the learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.16&17 are that the captioned O.A. is filed seeking action against the Answering Respondents for alleged encroachment of reserved forest land situated in Khasra No. 5621, Khasra No. 88 and Khasra No. 169 of Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary under Section 34-A of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. The Ld. Assistant Conservator of Forest, Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary, Jaipur (hereinafter "Ld. ACF") took cognizance of the aforesaid alleged violations and passed an ex-parte order dated July 24, 2024 in Case No.2/2024 in the matter State (Forest Department) vs. Anil Khandelwal against Respondent No.17 (hereinafter "July 24 Order") that is challenged by Respondent No. 17 in Criminal Revision No. 734 of 2024 before Ld. Additional District Judge-5, Metro-I, Jaipur under Section 438 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2024 and is currently pending adjudication. Copy of

¶99

¶100

O.A. No.61/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶101

the July 24 Order passed by Ld. ACF and Criminal Revision Petition filed by Respondent Nos. 17. It is submitted that re-adjudication of the same allegations before this Hon'ble Tribunal would amount to violation of fundamental rights of the Answering Respondents under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and amount to double jeopardy. Further, Section 56 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 also states that no person shall be tried for the same offence twice. And that order is a completely illegal passed ex-parte, Ld. ACF has itself given evidence in the matter in his capacity as Range Forest Officer and that evidence is relied upon by him in the order. Copy of statement given by Rajendra Singh Jhankhad in Case No. 2/2024 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R-16/4. The Answering Respondents have also learnt that a chargesheet has been filed against Mr. Rajendra Singh Jhankhad for acting outside his authority. The Answering Respondents also sought a certified copy of the same vide an application dated January 13, 2025 under the RTI Act, 2005 that was rejected as the documents concerns ongoing investigation.

¶102

Reply filed by Respondent Nos. 2, 4, 5 6 and 7 have categorically stated that the location of the said Plots are situated in Khasra No. 88 and not Khasra No. 5621. The Joint Report further states that the Mauka Naksha Report was formed by two officials of the Forest Department confirming that the property does not belong inside Forest Boundaries and Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary. The Survey Report further states that the said Plots are 9 metres away from Pillar No.371 to 372 of Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary. The said Plots initially belonged to the Manikyapuri Cooperative Housing Society Limited, which is a registered society, that developed a colony in Scheme No. 7 of its property on Khasra No. 88 and other Khasra numbers. The Manikyapuri

¶103

¶104

O.A. No.61/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶105

Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Jaipur allotted the aforesaid plots to its allottees who received allotment letters from the Manikyapuri Cooperative Housing Society Limited as per law. The said allottees sold the aforesaid plots to one Mr. Sanjay Khandelwal (partner in Respondent No. 16) and Respondent No. 17 vide registered Sale Deeds in the year 1984 and 1999 that were registered by the Sub Registrar, Jaipur. Since then, the Answering Respondents are in possession of the aforesaid Plots as owner and are using it in all ways. When Mr. Sanjay Khandelwal (partner in Respondent No. 16) and Respondent No. 17 registered the aforesaid sale deed, the Court of Additional Collector of Stamps registered cases No. 1239/98, 1240/98, 1241/98, 1242/98 and 1245/98 with respect of deficient stamp duty that was later stayed by the Hon'ble Board of Revenue for Rajasthan in Revision Petition Nos. 433/2000, 434/2000, 435/2000, 436/2000 and 437/2000 vide orders dated December 14, 2000. Copies of the orders dated December 14, 2000 passed by the Hon'ble Board of Revenue for Rajasthan are annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R-16/8 (Colly.). Thus, the Government of Rajasthan and its office had full information about the said Plots from the beginning and has received due stamp duty in this regard. There have been no disputes with respect to the said Plots from 1984 till date. Further name of Handicraft Haveli is built on the said Plots for which the Answering Respondents have from time to time deposited Municipal Development Tax and all other types of taxes with Jaipur Municipal Corporation Heritage and the Answering Respondents have also been continuously depositing sewerage tax etc. to the Municipal Corporation since a long time. Municipal Corporation Heritage, Nagar Nigam, Jaipur have also been collecting Urban Development House Tax and Urban Development Tax from the

¶106

¶107

O.A. No.61/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶108

Answering Respondents since the beginning, which clearly proves that the said Plots are also within the jurisdiction of Jaipur Municipal Corporation, Nagar Nigam, Jaipur. This clearly proves that the said Plots in the jurisdiction of Jaipur Municipal Corporation and not in the jurisdiction of the Forest Department. That the electricity connection in the said Plots were earlier issued by Rajasthan Electricity Department and later transferred to JVVNL, which is being used by the Answering Respondents for about 30 years.

¶109

It is further submitted that the Answering Respondents have built an office in the name of Handicraft Haveli in the said Plots, which has been registered with government/semi-government departments and has obtained GST number, which has been issued to the Answering Respondents by the State Government and the Government of India as per law. The Answering Respondents have obtained the Udyam Registration Certificate of the disputed property from MSME. In this way, all the government/semi-government departments have registered the said Plots and its standards by issuing all types of certificates as per law and the Answering Respondents, as a result of the said registration, have been continuously using the said Plots every way in a peaceful manner. The Answering Respondents have been continuously occupying the disputed property for more than 40 years and has been continuously using it peacefully, for which the Answering Respondents have a legal right. When the Answering Respondents got the PT survey of Khasra No. 88 of the said Plots done, it was clearly proved that the said Plots are in Khasra No. 88. The said Plots belong to the Answering Respondents situated at Khasra No. 88 and do not pertain to Khasra No. 5621/1 or in the forest land or Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary and therefore, the Applicant's claim is completely baseless. The location of

¶110

¶111

O.A. No.61/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶112

the said warehouse belongs 19 meters outside the Forest Boundaries and Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary. Further the PT Survey carried out by the Answering Respondents in respect of Khasra 169 also show that the warehouse of the Answering Respondents is outside the Forest Boundaries. Further, it is also pertinent to note that the office of the Chief Conservator of Forest and Wildlife in its meeting dated January 9, 2025 have resolved that the map of the Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary in the Notification dated March 8, 2019 has many errors and fresh maps were directed to be produced and the said Warehouse was purchased by the Answering Respondents vide registered Sale Deeds dated February 26, 2016 and May 25, 2017.

¶113

It is further argued that the representative of the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board conducted inspection of the aforesaid establishments and filed its Report in Reply dated September 26, 2024 in the captioned O.A. stating that no source of air pollution or trade effluent generation was observed. On January 21, 2025, the Answering Respondents have applied for consent to operate for consent to operate the establishments under section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and under Section 25 and 26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 from the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board.

¶114

It is further argued that the Applicant has applied for the consent to operate under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1981 and under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1974. It is further argued that the matter is being enunciated before the Competent Court/Civil Court and readjudication of the same allegation before this Tribunal would amount to violation of fundamental right.

¶115

¶116

O.A. No.61/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶117

Learned Counsel for the Applicant has filed the objection against the Joint Committee Report and submitted that the report is baseless and not on the basis of actual status. It is to be noted that the Forest Department by constituting the senior Officers has directed to identify the forest land and against these proceedings the objection has been filed by the Applicant that the report and proceedings are not in accordance with law. The contention and submission of the learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.14&15 (Jaipur Development Authority) are that the issue raised in the present applications has no co-relation with respect to other land parcels and Khasra numbers and that Land Khasra No. 169/2 is originally regarded in the name of the answering Respondent.

¶118

It is further argued that after the information, the Tehsildar visited the site and examined the encroachments and submitted the report to the Competent Authority. The learned Counsel for the Wildlife Warden has contended that a writ petition is pending before Hon’ble the High Court of Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur and further proceedings will be governed in accordance with the decision taken by the Authorities concerned. Hon’ble the High Court vide order dated 19.09.2025 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL No.14254 of 2025), Nahargarh Van Evam Vanya Jeev Suraksha Evam Seva Samiti versus Union of India & Ors. has directed that no change in the boundaries of the existing Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary which would include the Eco Sensitive Zone and the described area shall be made. The matter is still pending before the High Court. The contention of the Respondents are that the Applicant himself has filed this petition and on the request of the petitioner the proceedings of identification of the land have been initiated by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and when the matter was

¶119

¶120

O.A. No.61/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶121

finalized, they approached to the High Court and the proceeding of finalization of map has been stayed and without the finalization of the map and identification the exact location cannot be ascertained. Without ascertaining the actual status of the land in question it is very difficult to decide whether the matter in issue under this application falls under the forest area or not, especially in light of the Joint Committee Report in which it has been said and reported that the disputed matter falls outside the forest area and is not in violation of any Forest Act.

¶122

Learned Counsel for the Applicant has filed a report, letter no. एफ.

¶123

( )2025/वसु/वसं/2626-27 dated 16.12.2025 issued from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Rajasthan, Jaipur and submitted that the proceedings for fixing the responsibility have been initiated. This is a preliminary enquiry submitted by the Forest Department and on the basis of the preliminary enquiry the right of ownership on or over any property cannot be claimed. So far as, the reports are concerned the present dispute arose on the basis of letter no.696-705 dated 19.06.2023 issued by the Assistant Conservator of Forest, Wildlife Nahargarh Sanctuary, Jaipur, Rajasthan in which without any survey maps and proceedings it is referred that the construction falls within the forest area while in another survey report submitted by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Senior Officers including the Revenue Officer has submitted the report that area falls outside the forest area. Two different reports of different nature having opposite findings have been filed and thus, the Assistant Conservator of Forest, Jaipur posted on 19.06.2023 has submitted the report and initiated several litigations before different Courts on a non-finalized reports and this was done for ulterior motives. It is further to add that under Section 34A of the

¶124

¶125

O.A. No.61/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶126

Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, the Assistant Conservator of Forest has right to remove the encroachments according to rules but instead of taking actions he has simply made a complaint an order and given copy illegally and unauthorizedly to an outsider to file this petition with ulterior motives. Accordingly, we direct the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest to initiate an departmental enquiry against the person who was posted as an Assistant Conservator of Forest on 19.06.2023 and submitted this report without the final approval of the highest authorities and without finalizing the map of the Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary.

¶127

Learned counsel for the Respondent has submitted that a letter dated 16.12.2025 is the preliminary enquiry report and he also sought information under RTI Act which was not given to the Respondent and he has further submitted that the enquiry is pending as to how this copy of the order has been issued to the outsider without any authority. It is a departmental matter and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest has to make an enquiry as to whether a letter dated 16.12.2025 (paperbook 749 to 745) have been legally issued to the Applicant or not and if it is legally issued then why the copy of the same has not been issued in favour of the Respondents after compliance of the provisions of law. In view of the report submitted by the Joint Committee and as contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the Respondent, the structures are more than 30 years old and preexisting, before the notification issued with regard to eco sensitive zone.

¶128

Learned Counsel for the Respondent has relied on the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5863 of 2024 in which the similar matter relating to the sanctuary has been discussed regarding Nahargarh Wildlife and

¶129

¶130

O.A. No.61/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶131

relevant notification in light of the T.N. Godavarman case. The relevant

¶132

paragraphs are quoted below:

¶133

“8. It was further submitted that, subsequently, in the backdrop of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumilpad vs. Union of India, (2006) 5 SCC 25 and Goa Foundation vs. Union of India, (2011) 15 SCC 791, a draft EcoSensitive Zone (ESZ) Notification was published on 11.09.2017 inviting objections and suggestions from stakeholders, culminating in the issuance of the final ESZ Notification dated 08.03.2019 (Annexure-10). Learned counsel further submitted that as per the said ESZ Notification read with the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1986') and the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1972'), the Central Government and competent authorities are empowered to regulate, prohibit, or restrict establishment and operation of industries in the vicinity of protected areas, including sanctuaries, national parks, and eco-sensitive zones, by classifying activities into different categories so as to strike a balance between environmental protection and sustainable development. Thus, the Central Government, while exercising its powers under the Act of 1986, adopted the policy of Environmental Impact Assessment and introduced the mandatory requirement of prior Environmental Clearance vide Notification dated 14.09.2006, further classifying projects into Category "A" and Category "B".

¶134

9. It was further submitted that the Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary (hereinafter referred to as 'NWS') was declared as an eco-sensitive zone extending from 0 to 13 Kms from its boundary; and as per para 2 of the ESZ Notification dated 08.03.2019, it was categorically articulated that a Zonal Master Plan (ZMP) shall be prepared in consultation with the concerned departments, and that such plan shall not impose any restriction on already approved existing land use, infrastructure, and activities unless expressly provided in the Notification. Thus, making it in toto unambiguous that the petitioner has strictly complied with all applicable Notifications, including those dated 14.09.2006 and 08.03.2019, as well as the statutory framework under the Act of 1986 and other relevant enactments/statues. It was further submitted that the ESZ framework classifies activities into I) prohibited, II) regulated, and

¶135

¶136

O.A. No.61/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶137

III) permissible/promoted categories,

¶138

and that establishment of hotels and resorts falls within the category of regulated activities and not the prohibited category.

¶139

10.It was vehemently contended that the petitioner's unit falls within the category of an "Existing Unit" as defined under the ESZ Notification dated 08.03.2019, and cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be treated as a new commercial hotel, albeit the unit is situated within 1 Km from the boundary of the protected area. It was further submitted that the ESZ Notification dated 08.03.2019, read with the Zonal Master Plan for NWS (Annexure-12), undisputedly stipulates that existing units, as specifically defined therein, shall not be subjected to retrospective application of new restrictions, conditions, or regulatory requirements, particularly with respect to already approved land use, infrastructure, and construction. Learned counsel emphasized that the term "existing unit" has been defined in a specific and exclusive manner under the Notification and has been reiterated in the Zonal Master Plan, which was formulated after due consideration by all concerned departments, including the Jaipur Development Authority, Forest Department, Wildlife Authorities, Revenue Department, and Local Bodies.

¶140

11. It was submitted that the Petitioner satisfies the criteria of an existing unit, having obtained all requisite statutory approvals prior to the coming into force of the ESZ Notification dated 08.03.2019. These include approval from the Tourism Department dated 24.12.2007, land conversion permission dated 17.03.1998, building plan approval from the Jaipur Development Authority dated 14.12.2009, and Environmental Clearance dated 23.06.2017. It was further submitted that, in continuation thereof, the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board granted Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate vide orders dated 15.06.2020 and 26.11.2022 respectively (Annexures-13 and 14), and the Fire Department also issued the requisite No Objection Certificate at the relevant time. Hence, it can be drawn that the petitioner's unit squarely qualifies as an existing unit and cannot be classified as a new unit under the ESZ Notification dated 08.03.2019.

¶141

12. Learned counsel further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 03.06.2022 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202/1995 titled as IN RE: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Versus Union Of India And Ors., has clarified the legal position regarding applicability of ESZ norms vis-a-vis activities already undertaken within 1 kilometre of protected areas, holding that activities not

¶142

¶143

O.A. No.61/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶144

falling within the prohibited category, as per Guidelines dated 09.02.2011, may be permitted to continue subject to approval of the Chief Conservator of Forests of the respective State. The relevant extract from the order dated 03.06.2022 passed in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:

¶145

"56.5. In the event any activity is already being undertaken within the one kilometer or extended buffer zone (ESZ), as the case may be, of any wildlife sanctuary or national park which does not come within the ambit of prohibited activities as per the 9-2-2011 Guidelines, such activities may continue with permission of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests of each State or Union Territory and the person responsible for such activities in such a situation shall obtain necessary permission within a period of six months. Such permission shall be given once the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests is satisfied that the activities concerned do not come within the prohibited list and were continuing prior to passing of this order in a legitimate manner. No new permanent structure shall be permitted to come up for whatsoever purpose within the ESZ."

¶146

…………….x………………x……………...x………………..

¶147

38. This Court further takes note of the Office Memorandum dated 17.05.2022 (Annexure-19), issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, concerning the grant of clearances for projects situated in and around eco-sensitive zones. The said Office Memorandum elucidates the requirement of obtaining permissions from various authorities, including environmental, forest, and the National Board for Wildlife, depending upon the nature, location, and classification of the project. The same delineates, in a tabulated form, the categories of projects and the corresponding approvals required, thereby bringing greater clarity and uniformity in the application of the statutory framework. The relevant table is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:

¶148

"Prescribed w.r.t. applicability of EC, FC, and WC in ESZ/ESA and other ecologically significant areas outside PA:

¶149

¶150

O.A. No.61/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶151

39. It is further observed that the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, vide Notification dated 14.11.2006 issued under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, prescribed that any project or activity situated in and around forest or sanctuary areas is required to be appraised by the Environmental Impact Assessment Authority with respect to its environmental impact, in

¶152

¶153

O.A. No.61/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶154

consonance with the National Environmental Policy. The said Notification, inter alia, provided that building construction projects having a built-up area exceeding 20,000 square meters shall be governed by specified terms and conditions and would mandatorily require environmental appraisal and clearance. Subsequently, vide Notification dated 08.03.2019 (Annexure-10), a final notification was issued whereby, for the first time, the concept of Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) was delineated in respect of the boundary of the NWLS, specifying the extent thereof. The said Notification further mandated preparation of a Zonal Master Plan for the Eco-Sensitive Zone within a period of two years from the date of its publication, in consultation with local stakeholders and with the involvement of as many as thirteen different departments of the State Government. However, a plain reading of the said Notification makes it abundantly clear that "existing units" were specifically excluded from the rigours of the Notification, inasmuch as the restrictions and regulatory measures introduced therein were not intended to operate retrospectively so as to affect already approved and existing land use and activities. The relevant provisions of the said Notification are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:

¶155

"MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE NOTIFICATION

¶156

New Delhi, the 8th March, 2019

¶157

NOW THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) and clauses (v) and (xiv) of sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986) (hereafter in this modification referred to as the Environment Act) read with sub-rule (3) of rule 5 of the Environment(Protection) Rules, 1986 the Central Government hereby notifies an area to an extent of 0(zero) to 13 kilometers around the boundary of Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary, in Jaipur district of Rajasthan as Eco-Sensitive Zone (hereafter in this notification referred to as the Eco-Sensitive Zone) detail of which are as under namely:

¶158

1. Extent and boundaries of Eco-Sensitive Zone.

¶159

(1) The Eco-Sensitive Zone shall be to an extent of 0(zero) to 13 kilometers around the boundary of Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary and the area of Eco-Sensitive Zone is 79.356 square kilometers. Zero extent is towards the sides with heavy urbanization.

(2) xxxxx

(3) xxxxx

O.A. No.61/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶164

(4) XXXXX

¶165

(5) xxxxx

¶166

2. Zonal Master Plan for Eco-Sensitive Zone.-(1)

¶167

The State Government shall, for the purpose of the Eco-Sensitive Zone prepare a Zonal Master Plan within a period of two years from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette, in consultation with local people and adhering to the stipulations given in this notification for approval of the Competent authority of State. (2) The Zonal Master Plan for the Eco-Sensitive Zone shall be prepared by the State Government in such manner as is specified in this notification and also in consonance with the relevant Central and State laws and the guidelines issued by the Central Government, if any.

¶168

(3) The Zonal Master Plan shall be prepared in consultation with the following Departments of the State Government, for integrating the ecological and environmental considerations into the said plan:-

¶169

(i) Environment,

¶170

(ii) Forest,

¶171

(iii) Urban Development,

¶172

(iv) Tourism,

¶173

(v) Revenue,

¶174

(vi) Agriculture, (vii) Rural Development,

¶175

(viii) Irrigation and Flood Control,

¶176

(ix) Municipal,

¶177

(x) Panchayati Raj,

¶178

(xi) Public Works Department, and

¶179

(xii) Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board.

¶180

(4) The Zonal Master Plan shall not impose any restriction on the approved existing land use, infrastructure and activities unless so specified in this notification and the Zonal Master Plan shall factor in improvement of all infrastructure and activities to be more efficient and eco-friendly.

(5) xxxxx

(6) XXXXX

(7) XXXXX

(8) The Zonal Master Plan shall be co-terminus with the Regional Development Plan.

¶185

¶186

O.A. No.61/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶187

E. Tourism or Eco-Tourism- (a) All new eco-tourism activities or expansion of existing tourism activities within the Zone shall be as per the Tourism Master Plan for the Eco-Sensitive Zone.

¶188

(b) The Eco-Tourism Master Plan shall be prepared by the State Department of Tourism in the consultation with State Departments of Environment and Forests.

¶189

(c) The Tourism Master Plan shall form component of the Zonal Master Plan. a

¶190

(d) The activities of eco-tourism shall be regulated as under namely :- (i) new construction of hotels and resorts shall not be allowed within one kilometer from the boundary of the Wildlife Sanctuary or upto the extent of the Eco-Sensitive Zone whichever is nearer:

¶191

Provided that beyond the distance of one kilometer from the boundary of the Wildlife Sanctuary till the extent of the Eco-Sensitive Zone, the establishment of new hotels and resorts shall be allowed only in predefined and designated areas for eco-tourism facilities as per Tourism Master Plan;

¶192

(ii) all new tourism activities or expansion of existing tourism activities within the Eco-Sensitive Zone shall be in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Central Government in the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and the eco-tourism guidelines issued by National Tiger Conversation Authority (as amended from time to time) with emphasis on eco-Tourism;

¶193

(iii) until the Zonal Master Plan is approved, development for tourism and expansion of existing tourism activities shall be permitted by the concerned regulatory authorities based on the actual site-specific scrutiny and recommendation of the Monitoring Committee and no new hotel, resort or commercial establishment construction shall be permitted within Eco-Sensitive Zone area"

¶194

4. List of activities prohibited or to be regulated within Eco-Sensitive Zone. All activities in the Eco-Sensitive Zone shall be governed by the provisions of the Environment Act and the rules made there under including the Coastal Regulation Zone, 2011 and the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 and other applicable laws including the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (69 of 1980), the Indian Forest Act, 1972, (53 of 1972), and amendments made thereto and be regulated in the manner specified in the Table below, namely: -

¶195

¶196

O.A. No.61/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶197

40. In pursuance of the Notification dated 08.03.2019, the Zonal Master Plan for the Eco-Sensitive Zone of Nahargarh was duly prepared and issued by the Respondent-JDA in coordination and consultation with the Forest Department and in consultation with other concerned departments. The said Zonal Master Plan, in consonance with the aforesaid Notification, specifically delineates, under Para 10.4, the classification and treatment of "existing activities/uses" and "new hotel" projects, by providing distinct definitions aligned with tourism-related activities, thereby adopting a balanced and regulated approach. The relevant extract thereof is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:

¶198

"10.4 Existing Activity/Use

¶199

¶200

O.A. No.61/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶201

ESZ Notification dated 08-03-2019 prescribed regulations regarding new hotel, resort, commercial establishments, etc. This leads to the requirement of defining what is "existing".

¶202

For purpose of ZMP for the ESZ, hotels, resorts, commercial establishments, etc. shall be considered as existing if they have any of the following issued prior to Notification of Nahargarh : 08-03-2019 ESZ

¶203

1. Electricity connection for non-agricultural use.

¶204

2. Approval by Tourism Department as tourism unit.

¶205

3. Conversation order/Patta for non-agricultural use.

¶206

4. Building Plan approval.

¶207

5. Order regarding change in landuse.

¶208

6. Proof of deposition of tax as hotel, resort, commercial establishments, etc.

¶209

7. СТЕ/СТО/Environment Clearance.

¶210

Additionally, all the duly approved uses existing prior to issue of Nahargarh ESZ Notification shall be honored. Further process will be done in conformity with the development controls & zoning regulation as per Zonal Master Plan of ESZ." 41. This Court further observed that in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 08.08.2019 (Annexure-RR/2) issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (IA Division), a detailed procedure was prescribed for consideration of developmental projects situated within a radius of 10 kms. from National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries, while seeking Environmental Clearance under the provisions of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006. It is also discerned therefrom that prior approval of the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife is required in respect of developmental projects falling within the aforesaid 10 Kms radius of the EcoSensitive Zone. The relevant extract of the said Office Memorandum dated 08.08.2019 is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:

¶211

"4. In light of the aforesaid Orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the issues related to the prior clearance from SCNBWL for the notified ESZs and the remaining areas have been examined in detail, in this regard, it has been decided by the Competent Authority in the Ministry to adopt a following procedure for consideration of developmental projects located within 10 km of National Park/Wildlife Sanctuary seeking environmental clearance under the

¶212

¶213

O.A. No.61/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶214

provisions of the EIA Notification in supersession of the earlier O.M. s dated 27.2.2007 and 2.12.2009:

¶215

i. Proposals involving developmental activity/project located within by the notified Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZ) shall be regulated and governed by the concerned ESZ notification. However, for the developmental Schedule of the EIA notification. However, for the developmental project/activity located within the notified ESZ and covered under the schedule of the EIA Notification 2006, prior clearance from Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (SCNBWL) is mandatory. In such cases, the project proponent shall submit the application simultaneously for grant of Terms of Reference as wells as wildlife clearance.

¶216

ii. Proposals involving developmental activity/project located outside the stipulated boundary limit of notified ESZ and located within 10 km of National Park/Wildlife Sanctuary, prior clearance from Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (SCNBWL) may not be applicable. However, such proposals from environmental angle including impact of developmental activity/project on the wildlife habitat, if any, would be examined by the sector specific Expert Appraisal Committee and appropriate conversation measures in the form of recommendations shall be made. These recommendations shall be explicity mentioned in the environmental clearance letter and shall be ensured by the member secretary concerned.

¶217

iii. Proposals involving developmental activity/project located within 10 km of National Park/Wildlife Sanctuary wherein final ESZ notification is not notified (or) ESZ notification is in draft stage, prior clearance from Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (SCBNWL) is mandatory. In such cases, the project proponent shall submit the application simultaneously for grant of Terms, of Reference/ environmental clearance as well as wildlife clearance.

¶218

iv. Proposals involving mining of minerals within the ESZ (or) one kilometer from the boundaries of National Parks and Sanctuaries whichever is higher is prohibited in accordance with the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 4.08.2006 in the matter of T.N. Godavarman Thirmulpad Vs. UOI in W.P.

¶219

¶220

O.A. No.61/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶221

(C) No. 202 of 1995 and dated 21.4.2014 in the matter of Goa Foundation Vs. UOI in W.P. (C) No. 435 of 2012."

¶222

With regard to prohibited and regulated activities Hon’ble the High

¶223

Court observed as follows:-

¶224

42.2 That the Notification dated 08.03.2019 distinctly classifies activities into "prohibited", "regulated", and "promotional" categories. The hotel project of the petitioner, by its very nature and in view of the approvals granted, falls within the ambit of "regulated activity. The said Notification further mandates preparation of a Zonal Master Plan for Eco-Sensitive Zones, to be formulated with the approval of the competent State authority in consultation with as many as thirteen concerned departments, including but not limited to the Environment, Forest, Tourism, and Local Bodies Departments. The object of such a coordinated framework is to ensure infrastructural development and ecological balance, without disturbing or imposing restrictions upon already approved and existing land-use and infrastructural developments. The Zonal Master Plan is further intended to operate in harmony with the Regional/Tourism Development Plans, thereby ensuring a balanced approach towards eco-tourism and sustainable development.

¶225

42.3 That as per the Notification dated 08.03.2019, only new constructions of hotels and resorts located within a distance of 1 Km from the boundary of a Wildlife Sanctuary are expressly prohibited. The Zonal Master Plan, issued subsequently in the year 2023, in terms of Para 10.4, provides a categorical definition of "existing units". As per the said provision, any hotel or resort which had obtained requisite approvals prior to the issuance of the Notification dated 08.03.2019 is to be treated as an "existing unit". In the present case, the Petitioner had already secured multiple statutory approvals, including those relating to electricity, tourism, land use conversion, building plan sanction, and environmental clearance, prior to the cut-off date. Therefore, the Petitioner squarely falls within the definition of an "existing unit", and its vested rights cannot be divested or impaired in consonance with the settled principles of certainty, legitimate expectation, and continuity in administrative action.

¶226

¶227

O.A. No.61/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶228

Since the unit is operated outside the forest area as pre-existing unit and there are valid environmental clearances and consent condition from the Competent Authority, thus, no violation has been found. Thus, no further action is required by this Tribunal and another question has been raised with regard to the identification, measurement, demarcation, protection, mutation or removal of the encroachment but these are the subject-matter of the Revenue Courts or the Competent Forest Department to identify and demarcate it and the High Level Committee, has been constituted to do it and the matter is pending before Hon’ble the High Court.

¶229

In State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Raghu Ramakrishna Raju Kanumuru decided on 01st of June, 2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when the matter has been taken by the Higher Court/Constitutional Court, then in that case precedence of Constitutional Courts over the statutory Tribunals like NGT, in the matter of territorial jurisdiction prevails. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:-

¶230

"i Priya Gupta v. Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (2013) 11 SCC 404: This case underscored that government departments are not exempt from complying with court orders. It emphasized that orders from higher courts hold paramount authority, and lower tribunals must adhere to them to maintain legal coherence and respect for the judiciary.

¶231

ii. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1995) 1 SCC 400: A Constitutional Bench judgment that established the hierarchy and jurisdictional boundaries between different judicial bodies, reinforcing that statutory tribunals like the NGT are subordinate to High Courts within their territorial jurisdiction. East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs AIR 1962 SC 1893: This case highlighted the necessity for administrative bodies to follow higher court directives to ensure consistency and predictability in judicial decisions. Official Liquidator v. Dayanand (2008) 10 SCC 1: Reiterated the indispensability of obeying higher court orders to preserve the integrity and functionality of the judicial system. These precedents collectively reinforced the

¶232

¶233

O.A. No.61/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶234

principle that higher courts' orders supersede those of statutory tribunals, ensuring a unified legal framework.

¶235

Jurisdictional Hierarchy: The High Court holds territorial jurisdiction, making its orders binding over any subordinate tribunal operating within the same jurisdiction, such as the NGT. Conflict of Orders: When contradictory orders are issued by the High Court and NGT on the same matter, the higher court's directive takes precedence to prevent legal ambiguity. Constitutional Authority: Referencing Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the Court emphasized that the law declared by a higher court is binding on all lower courts and tribunals. Administrative Sanity: Maintaining a clear hierarchy ensures Administrative Sanity: Maintaining a clear hierarchy ensures predictable and consistent application of the law, which is essential for administrative efficiency and public trust in the legal system. By applying these principles, the Supreme Court concluded that the NGT had erred in continuing proceedings that conflicted with the High Court's jurisdiction and order."

¶236

In view of the above discussion, Report of the Joint Committee and Report of the Forest Department our conclusions and directions are as follows: -

¶237

i. Unit is being operated outside forest area and outside the Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary, thus, as per Joint Committee Report no violations have been found, thus, no further action is required by this Tribunal.

¶238

ii. Matter with regard to the mutation proceedings is governed by the revenue law and will be considered on application moved by the aggrieved, by the competent Revenue Courts.

¶239

iii. The matters which are pending in Civil Court in the civil suit as narrated above will be governed by the orders of the Civil Court. Existing activities will be governed under the provisions contained in the EIA Notification and Tourism or

¶240

¶241

O.A. No.61/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶242

Eco-Tourism Policy issued by the State Government and Notification dated 08.03.2019.

¶243

iv. The matter with regard to the identification, demarcation and protection of the area of the Nahargarh Wildlife is pending with the Committee headed by the Principal Chief Conservator Forest which is finalized and is in process of approval of the State Government.

¶244

The above proceedings have been challenged before the Hon’ble High Court in which interim order has been passed. The matter will be governed in accordance with the order of the Hon’ble High Court and/or finalization of the survey map/map by the Committee headed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest.

¶245