Dismissed

Rajiv Bhagelu Gupta v. District Collector Palghar

NGT17 Aug 2026IA No. 311/2026 in Original Application No. 147/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant, an environmentalist, filed an original application alleging illegal construction, forest encroachment, and sewage pollution by an educational institution near Tungareshwar Wildlife Sanctuary. The Tribunal, after relying on a Joint Committee report that found no encroachment or illegal discharge, dismissed the application, noting the applicant failed to provide usable evidence of pol

What did the court decide?

The prayer for directions regarding illegal construction, restoration, and revocation of certificates was dismissed.

Rajiv Bhagelu Gupta vs District Collector Palghar — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No. 6

¶2

(Pune Bench)

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

[THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]

¶5

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 147/2025 (WZ) IA No. 311/2026 (WZ)

¶6

Rajiv Bhagelu Gupta …..Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Rajiv Bhagelu Gupta & Ors.

¶9

….Respondents

¶10

Date of hearing: 17.08.2026

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. SUJIT KUMAR BAJPAYEE, EXPERT MEMBER

¶12

Applicant : Mr. Ashok H. Dubey, Advocate Respondents : Mrs. Ronita Bhattacharya, Adv. for R.2 Mr. Pushkal Mishra, for MoEF & CC Ms. Pooja Natu, Advocate h/f Ms. Manasi Joshi, Advocate for R-1 & 7 Mr. Deepak Gupte, for R 9-11 Mr. Shivshankar Swaminathan, Advocate for R-6

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This application has been moved with a prayer that a direction may be issued to respondent no. 2- Gnyanodaya Multipurpose High School & Jr. College, all illegal construction and occupation of the two buildings on Survey Nos. 11D and 11A, Village Kolhi and restore the same; a direction be issued to respondent no. 6- Vasai Virar City Municipal Corporation to revoke the Commencement Certificate and Occupancy Certificates granted subsequent to one of the buildings in question until full compliance with all environmental and forest regulations is achieved; concerned authorities be directed to ensure restoration of the damaged ecology, including rejuvenation of the affected watercourse, removal of silt and waste. Submission is that the applicant is environmentalist. Tungareshwar Wildlife Sanctuary, located at Thana and Palghar District, Maharashtra

¶15

Page 1 of 7

¶16

covers approximately 85.70 Sq. Kms., forms an ecologically critical corridor connecting the Sanjay Gandhi National Park and Tansa Wildlife Sanctuary. The said region sustains rich biodiversity. Recognising its ecological sensitivity, the MoEF&CC has issued Eco-Sensitive Zone notification dated 11^th September, 2019, declaring the Tungareshwar Wildlife Sanctuary an Eco-Sensitive Zone, which covers 67.26 Sq. Km, extending from 100 mtrs. to 4 kms. around the sancutary boundary within this ecologically fragile area. Respondent no. 2- Gnyanodaya Multipurpose High School & Jr. College, private educational institution have constructed the said project which stands on land bearing Survey No. 11D, while adjoining Survey No. 11A is recorded as Protected Forest Land in 7/12 extract. The two school buildings have been constructed perilously close to a natural river course originating from perennial springs of the Tungareshwar hills, forming part of hydrological network supporting both ESZs. The construction has taken place virtually on river’s edge, without maintaining the mandatory 9 mtrs. buffer prescribed under regulation 5.1.1(ii) of Development Control Regulations, 2001 of the Vasai Virar Sub-Region. During construction, portions of the riverbed were filled with sand and construction & demolition waste. A compound wall was erected obstructing the natural flow and altering the river’s course, in violation of the mandatory conditions of the Development Control Regulations. The project owner and operator, Mr. Arun Verma, associated with Gnyanodaya Multipurpose High School & Jr. College, has been discharging untreated sewage directly into the river flowing through the ESZ without secondary treatment, which contaminated water used by the local villagers for washing and cleaning utensils and for cattle etc. The approach road or access to the school traverses Survey No. 11A, classified as Protected Forest Land, for which no prior approval or NoC has been obtained from the Forest Department or the Central Government under

¶17

Page 2 of 7

¶18

Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Regulation 5.2.1 of the Development Control Regulations mandates that every plot shall have lawfull access through a recognized public or private road. The present project relies solely on an unauthorized passage through forest land, lacking any legally valid means of access. Despite these legal infirmities, the respondent no. 6 has issued two Commencement Certificates to the Project Proponent. The Project Proponent has also encroached upon the river course by erecting a compound wall and undertaking landfilling activities. Project Proponent has committed multiple violations of both Tungareshwar WLS ESZ and the Sanjay Gandhi National Park ESZ notifications, including encroachment and alteration of a natural river course formed by perennial springs; b) development on steep, erosion prone forested slopes; c) unauthorised tree felling and the direct discharge of untreated sewage effluent from septic tank into natural water bodies. Hence, the above prayes are made.

¶19

The matter was first considered by this Tribunal on 11.12.2025 and notices were issued to the respondents. The applicant was directed to provide copies of memo of Original Application and relevant documents to the respondents, within one week. Respondent no. 2- Project Proponent has filed its reply dated 11.04.2026 and it is submitted that two sons of the applicant did not do well in examinations they gave at the respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 2 being a High School and Junior Colleges serves as an examination centre for Higher Secondary Board examinations as well as entrance examinations such as NEET. Since the sons of the applicant gave examinations in the premises of the respondent no. 2 and result of the same were declared unfavourable to the sons, hence, applicant fixated on creating nuisance and obstructions for the functioning of the respondent no. 2 by filing frivolous and false complaints. The applicant had filed two PILs in the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, making allegations

¶20

Page 3 of 7

¶21

that the strucutres of respondent no. 2 are unauthorised and should be demolished. Both PILs, PIL No. 8/2020 and PIL No. 63/2020, were omnibus and vague petitions regarding various unauthorised structures, both the PILs were disposed of with a direction to the applicant to make a detailed representation to relevant Municipal Commissioner.

¶22

It is further mentioned that there is no correlation between the land on which the buildings of the respondent no. 2 are constructed and the ESZ of Tungareshwar Wildlife Sanctuary or Sanjay Gandhi National Park. The institution of respondent no. 2 is also not located in any forest land. Access road to the institution of the respondent no. 2 has been made across 5.96 acres of forest land, it is a false allegation. The said access road is actually a State Highway and has not been constructed by respondent no. 2. The area occupied by the respondent no. 2 is approximately one acre. There is no question of respondent no. 2 building a 5.96 acre access road to the same. Survey No. 11A was formally denotified as a forest vide notification dated 23.06.1942. However, the structures of the respondent no. 2 are anyways located on a distinct plot i.e plot bearing Survey No. 11D which is admittedly not a forest land. No strucutre of the respondent no. 2 is located on Survey No. 11A. There was no necessity of obtaining clearance by the respondent no. 2. The applicant has wrongfully claimed that the river was flowing beside its institution as a nalla and not a river. The description of the said stream being an open nalla is specified in the development plan and is not a figment of imagination of respondent no. 2. Any allegation of water pollution, obstruction of flow caused to the nalla by its actions is denied. The respondent no. 2 is extracting over 20,000 Lts. of groundwater per day without an NoC from the Central Ground Water Authority. The respondent no. 2 is utilising borewell water well under the applicable limits for NoC. Hence, it is prayed that this application be dismissed.

¶23

Page 4 of 7

¶24

This Tribunal had constituted a Joint Committee with a direction that the Committee shall visit the site and submit report on following points i) whether any encroachment has been done by respondent no. 2 at the site in question and if yes, the details thereof; ii) whether the construction is found to be illegal; iii) whether discharge of sewerage is being done by respondent no. 2 into water body or stream, which is contaminating the portable water around the nearby area.

¶25

Based on our above directions the Joint Committee has submited

¶26

its report, relevant part which is as follows:-

¶27

Page 5 of 7

¶28

It is apparent from the above Joint Committee Report that no encroachment has been found to have been done by the respondent no. 2 at the site in question nor has it noted that any illegal construction was found to be there.

¶29

Against this report, the applicant has filed rejoinder, which is annexed at Page No. 484, wherein the applicant has raised objection to the Joint Committee Report by filing their objection dated 27.07.2026, wherein the main emphasis is laid on Para 17, which is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶30

“None of the aforesaid findings exonerates Respondent No. 2 from compliance with the applicable environmental laws. On the contrary, each of these findings gives rise to further statutory questions requiring investigation. The admitted absence of an STP, the existence of only two septic tanks for an institution catering to approximately 4,500 students (page no.- 448, para- 39-41), the continued extraction of groundwater, and the admitted use of an approach road passing through Protected Forest land collectively warrant a deeper environmental inquiry rather than closure of the proceedings.”

¶31

We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. The main emphasise during the arguments laid by the applicant was that an STP has not been set up by respondent no. 2 in their premises because of which the sewage is flowing into the nalla polluting the water at site in question. But no such discharge was found by the Joint Committee Report which is evident and we do not find any force in the objections raised against the said report by the learned counsel for applicant. He has also sent us set of pendrives, containing the position of site in question with respect to the pollution happening in the nalla but the same could not be opened. Therefore, we did not have the

¶32

Page 6 of 7

¶33

benefit of watching the said video of the site in question. In view of the report submitted by the Joint Committee we do not find any force in the present application and we dismiss it.

¶34

Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶35

Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee, EM

¶36

August 17, 2026 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 147/2025 (WZ) IA No. 311/2026 (WZ)

¶37

F.K

¶38

Page 7 of 7

Rajiv Bhagelu Gupta v. District Collector Palghar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajiv Bhagelu Gupta v. District Collector Palghar

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

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

Ajay R Jani vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Gargi Black Stone Quarry Works vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Gargi Black Stone Quarry Works vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Shyam Narayan Maurya vs Appellate Authority /Special Secretary Environment Forest and Climate Change Department Govt. of U.P

Akshay Sunil Jagtap vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Akshay Sunil Jagtap vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Madhu Sudan Palai S/O Late Binayak Palai Aged About 51 Years vs 1. State of Odisha Represented by Chief Secretary Government of Odisha

Ajay R Jani vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Gargi Black Stone Quarry Works vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Gargi Black Stone Quarry Works vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Rajiv Bhagelu Gupta vs District Collector Palghar

Akshay Sunil Jagtap vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Akshay Sunil Jagtap vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change