In this amended application challenging encroachment removal actions, the Tribunal rejected the plea to halt demolition, noting that prior orders under OA 366/2018 mandate removal and notices were already served. The application was disposed of as lacking force.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(Pune Bench)
Item No.2
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE
[THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.14 OF 2026 (WZ) I.A. NO.60 OF 2026 (WZ)
Gulabi Ramzan Rayashi & 8 Ors.
…..Applicants
Versus
The State of Gujarat & 5 Ors.
….Respondents
Date of hearing: 10.03.2026
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. SUJIT KUMAR BAJPAYEE, EXPERT MEMBER
Applicants : Mr. Saurabh Kulkarni, Advocate
ORDER
I.A. NO.60 OF 2026 (WZ)
Page 1 of 4
against nature of encroachments and the persons, who can be classified as encroachers, as the same cannot have blanket directions.
“8. On the issue of limitation, the fact remains that there is no mention of the date of alleged encroachments and details of the alleged encroachers nor such alleged encroachers are party to the application. Under Section 15(3) of the NGT Act, 2010, remedy before the Tribunal can be taken only within five years from the accrual of cause of action. However, instead of rejecting the application on these technicalities, we adopt pragmatic approach in larger public interest. Since the application has been
Page 2 of 4
filed on 28.05.2018, it is made clear that order of this Tribunal will apply only to cause of action accruing after 28.05.2013. However this will not affect action of the authorities even for earlier encroachments, if otherwise permissible in exercise of their powers, as limitation is applicable only to the remedy before this Tribunal.
9. As per stand of the State of Gujarat encroachment are undisputed. Some encroachments are claimed to have been removed and process to remove the remaining is said to be underway. We are of the view that to enforce the rule of law and to protect the forest lands, meaningful further action should be taken expeditiously and completed as far as possible within six months. For this purpose, we direct a joint Committee of Divisional Commissioner, Kutch and Chief Conservator of Forest, Kutch to prepare an action plan within one month clearly defining the extent of encroachments and modalities for removing the same. Execution of action plan may be reviewed by the said Committee at least once in every month. The Committee will be at liberty to take the assistance of any other experts/authority in the matter. Minutes of the joint Committee may be placed on the website and a copy thereof be sent to the Chief Secretary, Gujarat for such further action as may be found necessary.”
Page 3 of 4
Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM
Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee, EM
March 10, 2026 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.14 OF 2026 (WZ) I.A. NO.60 OF 2026 (WZ) P.Kr.
Page 4 of 4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the present amendment application for substitution in prayer clauses needs to be allowed given the Tribunal's prior order.
Whether the applicants' removal processes violate the principles of natural justice.
Whether the original application warrants disposal in light of the Tribunal's previous directions and current enforcement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Banni Pashu Uchherak Maldhari Sangthan vs. Union of India & Ors.Relied on¶22
Original Application No. 366/2018 (M.A. No. 1780/2018)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Gulabi Ramzan Rayashi & 8 Ors.
The State of Gujarat & 5 Ors.
Dinesh Kumar Singh
Sujit Kumar Bajpayee
As recorded by the court registry
An application for interim relief made while the main matter is pending.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
