Allowed

News Item Titled "Why Flooding Has Forced Dda'S Master Plan Rethink" Appearing in Times of India Dated 22.08.2023 vs

NGT14 May 2026IA No. 283/2026 in Original Application No. 537/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An I.A. filed by GNCTD seeking clarification on the Tribunal's order regarding artificial embankments and floodplain demarcation under the River Ganga Order, 2016, was granted for strengthening an existing wall.

What did the court decide?

Clarification that the proposed strengthening of the flood control wall does not constitute an artificial embankment for the purpose of demarcation of the floodplain under Clause 3(l) of the River Gan

News Item Titled "Why Flooding Has Forced Dda'S Master… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.04 Court No. 1

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶3

IA No. 277/2026 & IA No. 283/2026

¶4

¶5

Original Application No. 537/2023

¶6

News Item Titled "Why Flooding Has Forced DDA's Master Plan Rethink" Appearing in Times of India Dated 22.08.2023

¶7

Versus

¶8

Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶9

Date of hearing: 14.05.2026

¶10

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

¶11

Respondents: Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta & Ms. Ananya Basudha, Advs. for R-1 Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, Ms. Deeksha L. Kakar, Ms. Sana Parveen & Mr. Rashneet Singh, Advs. for DDA

¶12

ORDER

¶13

I.A. No. 277/2026 has been filed by Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) seeking clarification of the order dated 25.03.2026.

¶14

Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant in the I.A. has submitted that I.A. has been moved for the limited purpose of permitting the GNCTD to strengthen the existing wall between the Magazine drain (Majnu Ka Tila) and the Old Railway Bridge (Nili Chhatri Mandir Area). She has submitted that it is a flood protection wall and is required to be strengthened to protect the area from flooding. She has further submitted that strengthening of the wall will not affect the demarcation of the floodplain zone in terms of the River Ganga (Rejuvenation, Protection and Management) Authorities Order, 2016 dated 07.10.2016.

¶15

By this I.A., clarification in respect of paragraphs no. 4 and 5 of the order dated 25.03.2026 has been sought. Tribunal in paragraphs no. 4 and 5 of that order had taken note of the fact that I&FCD was going to construct

¶16

¶17

a flood wall in the stretch in question and had observed that demarcation of the flood plain is to be done in terms of the Clause 3 (l) of River Ganga (Rejuvenation, Protection and Management) Authorities Order, 2016 and artificially created embankment cannot be treated as the outer limit for determining the flood plain. The observation of the Tribunal in the order dated 25.03.2026 in this regard was as follows:

¶18

“4. A perusal of the report also reveals that I&FCD is going to construct a flood wall in the stretch from Majnu Ka Tila to Nigam Bodh Ghat purportedly to prevent ingress of flood water and details with longitude and latitude of the embankment have been mentioned on page 344 and simulated water levels for 100 year flood, with respect to the right and left embankment levels, have been shown in figures 5.6, 5.4 and 5.5 of the report as disclosed in paragraph 5.7 (h) on page 342.

¶19

5. Demarcation of the flood plain is required to be done in terms of the Clause 3 (l) of River Ganga (Rejuvenation, Protection and Management) Authorities Order, 2016 and artificially created embankment cannot be treated as the outer limit for determining the flood plain. ”

¶20

In this I.A., it has been specifically pleaded that flood control wall in question was already in existence but is in a dilapidated condition.

¶21

Counsel for the GNCTD has referred to the photographs filed as annexure R-1/2 along with the I.A. to show the condition of the existing wall and has submitted that the wall is required to be repaired and strengthened. She has pointed out that existing wall is 4.7 km long which will be strengthened and it height will be marginally increased in that process. She has also pointed out that Yamuna Standing Committee had approved the proposal for strengthening of the wall in its minutes of 95^th meeting along with certain conditions and these minutes have been placed on record along with the I.A. as annexure R-1/4.

¶22

¶23

In the I.A., it has been specifically pleaded that proposed wall is not intended to redefine or substitute the floodplain demarcation, but is only a protective wall.

¶24

The I.A. further states that proposed work is not for creation of a new intervention, but for strengthening and raising of an existing flood protection system. It has been stated in the application that identified stretch is hydraulically vulnerable and requires targeted structural intervention to prevent catastrophic flooding and to protect life and property. Paragraph no. 12 of the I.A. clarifies that the proposed construction/work is only a site-specific intervention, limited to a vulnerable stretch as a flood mitigation measure, and is not intended to interfere with the broader exercise of flood demarcation.

¶25

Learned Counsel appearing for the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) has submitted that work relating to strengthening of the wall should be confined to the vulnerable section only. This submission has not been disputed by Learned Counsel appearing for GNCTD. Apart from this, none of the Counsel for the parties has opposed the prayer made in the I.A. Hence, prayer made in the I.A. is granted and I.A No. 277/2026 is accordingly disposed of.

¶26

I.A. No. 283/2023 was filed by the applicant for urgent listing of the I.A. No. 277/2026. Since the I.A. No. 277/2026 has been taken up and decided today, therefore, I.A. No. 283/2026 is also accordingly disposed of. 10. List on 16.07.2026.

¶27

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶28

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶29

May 14, 2026 IA No. 277/2026 & IA No. 283/2026 In Original Application No. 537/2023 JG.

¶30

News Item Titled "Why Flooding Has Forced Dda'S Master Plan Rethink" Appearing in Times of India Dated 22.08.2023 vs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

News Item Titled "Why Flooding Has Forced Dda'S Master Plan Rethink" Appearing in Times of India Dated 22.08.2023 vs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamal Kumar Rathi vs State of Madhya Pradesh through Its Chief Secretary

M/S Pankaj Tiwari Private Limited through Its Authorized Signatory Shri Pankaj Twari vs Union of India through Secretary

M/S R.B. Distributors Private Limited through Its Authorized Signatory Shri Pratap Singh Atwal vs Union of India through Secretary

Jagat Choudhary S/O Sh. Vijay Choudhary vs Union of India

Lucknow Omaxe City Residents & Allotters Association (Loraa) vs Ms Omaxe Limited

Raghvendra Chaddha vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Lucknow Omaxe City Residents & Allotters Association (Loraa) vs Ms Omaxe Limited

Lucknow Omaxe City Residents & Allotters Association (Loraa) vs Ms Omaxe Limited

Sudiep Shrivastava vs Union of India

Gaurav Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Sudiep Shrivastava vs Union of India

News Item Titled "Why Flooding Has Forced Dda'S Master Plan Rethink" Appearing in Times of India Dated 22.08.2023 vs

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 34/2026 in Original Application No. 33/2026 of Shri Bhagwan Tyagi vs State of Haryana

Pradeep Dahiya vs Mines and Geology