Disposed

Sheesh Pal v. State of Haryana

NGT2 Apr 2026IA No. 261/2026 in Original Application No. 155/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL allowed an application for impleadment of a landowner and directed the first respondent to appear virtually. The court ensured opportunity for reply and rejoinder before listing.

What did the court decide?

Original Application No. 261/2026 allowed; leave granted to amend cause title; first respondent directed to appear virtually.

Sheesh Pal vs State of Haryana — NGT (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Item No. 19

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Original Application No. 155/2025 (IA No. 261/2026)

¶5

Sheesh Pal Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Haryana & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶8

Date of hearing: 02.04.2026

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER

¶10

Applicant: Mr. Roopansh Purohit & Mr. Harsh Panwar, Advs.

¶11

Respondents: Mr. Rahul Khurana, Adv. for R - 1 to 6

¶12

Mr. Narender Pal Singh, Adv. in I.A. 261/2026

¶13

ORDER

¶14

I.A. No. 261/2026 has been filed one Mahima Dutt seeking impleadment in this OA. Learned counsel for the Applicant in the IA submits that the Applicant in the IA is the owner of the land in respect of which allegation of illegal felling has been made. The IA has not been opposed by the counsel for any of the parties, hence, allowed. The counsel for the Applicant is directed to carry out the amendment in the cause title of the OA within one week.

¶15

Leaned counsel for the Applicant has also pointed out that in this OA, the main allegation of granting the permission illegally is against the Respondent No.5 but a common reply stated to has been filed on behalf of the Respondents no. 1 to 6 dated 15.11.2025. He has referred to paragraph 1 of the reply and has submitted that this reply is in fact on behalf of the Respondent No. 5 who has been authorized to file the reply on behalf of the remaining Respondents. He submits that the Respondent against whom allegation has been made has filed the reply on behalf of those who need

¶16

¶17

to take action. In such circumstances, he has made an allegation that the correct facts have not been come on record.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted the reply has been filed by the Respondent No. 5 on behalf of all other Respondents as the decision has been taken at the higher-level and he has been authorized to file the reply by others.

¶19

Having regard to the above submissions and to ascertain the correct factual status, we direct the Respondent No. 1 to appear virtually on the next date of hearing and assist the Tribunal.

¶20

It will be open to the newly added Respondent to file reply within four

¶21

weeks. Rejoinder can be filed by the Applicant within six weeks.

¶22

List for hearing on 20.07.2026.

¶23

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶24

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶25

April 02, 2026 Original Application No. 155/2025 A

¶26

Sheesh Pal v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheesh Pal v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms God Gift Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs Haryana State Pollution Control Board

Ajad Kuraishi vs Central Pollution Control Board

Varun vs Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi

Ia No. 31/2026 in Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 32/2024 of Saroj Mishra Aged 56 Years S/O N. Mishra vs 1. State of Odisha Represented through Addl Chief Secretary of Department of Forest Environment and Climate Change

Deepank Kumar Sharma vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Manav Uthaan Manch through Its Authorised Signatory Hemant Kumar Madhavdas Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra

Mukesh Gaikwad S/O Shri Shivaji Gaikwad vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change through Deputy Director General of Forests

Society Fdevelopment of Human Resource vs State of Haryana

Ms God Gift Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs Haryana State Pollution Control Board

Ms God Gift Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs Haryana State Pollution Control Board

Ajad Kuraishi vs Central Pollution Control Board

Sunil Verma vs Punjab Pollution Control Board

Gram Panchayat Galhri vs Union of India

Gram Panchayat Galhri vs Union of India