Disposed

Aditya Chaudhuri v. State of Haryana through the Chief Secretary

NGT31 Aug 2026IA No. 650/2026 in Original Application No. 513/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal disposed of an application alleging destruction of a green belt in Gurugram. The court directed the Municipal Corporation to prevent any illegal tree felling on the land in question pending further orders.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent no.2 to ensure that no illegal felling of tree on the land in question takes place.

Aditya Chaudhuri vs State of Haryana through the Chief… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No. 05 Court No. 1

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶3

Original Application No. 513/2026 (I.A. No.650/2026)

¶4

Aditya Chaudhuri & Ors. Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Haryana & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶7

Date of hearing: 31.08.2026

¶8

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

¶9

Applicant. Mr. Srisatya Mohanty, Ms. Sakshi Mittal & Mr. Jyotiraditya Roy Chowdhury, Advs. for Applicant

¶10

ORDER

¶11

By this Original Application (O.A.), the residents of C-1 Block, Sushant Lok Phase-1, Gurugram, Haryana have raised the plea that there is a green belt situated opposite the houses C-1/2906 to C-1/2927, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Ward No.24, Gurugram.

¶12

The applicants have further pleaded that there is thick vegetation and dense canopy of trees in this green belt. 3. The grievance of the applicants is that respondent nos.2 and 4, i.e. Municipal Corporation, Gurugram and Gurugram Metropolitan Development Authority through their contractors are in the process of destroying the green belt.

¶13

The applicant could not show any authentic document revealing that the land in question has been earmarked as a green belt.

¶14

Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the RTI application before the competent authority in this regard is already pending, but, in the meanwhile, he has expressed the apprehension that

¶15

¶16

the trees standing in that piece of land will be illegally cut in the process of execution of work in pursuance to the tender ID 2025-HRY-481134-1.

¶17

The Tribunal, in the matter of Sukhbir Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., OA. No.124/2024, dated 09.09.2025, for want of requisite regulation for felling of trees in the State of Haryana from the private land has already issued the following directions:-

¶18

“xxx………………………………………xxx……………………………………xxx

¶19

109. In view of order dated 01.07.2022 passed by this Tribunal on I.A. No. 162/2022 filed by the Kurukshetra Development Board in O.A. No. 374/2022 titled Green Earth Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra and others holding that State of Haryana to be bound by public trust doctrine to lay down appropriate mechanism for protection of trees and direction issued to the Chief Secretary, Haryana to look into the matter and if no regulation existed to lay down regulatory mechanism within a month, the trees standing over the land involved in the present original application can be cut in accordance with regulatory mechanism laid down in this regard.

¶20

111. Since the matter of laying down regulatory mechanism governing cutting of trees in urban areas is likely to take some time, interim directions given by this Tribunal here-in-above will be applicable to the land involved in the present original application. In view thereof respondent no.5-HSVP is directed to apply to the Divisional Forest Officer, Rohtak for grant of permission for translocation/cutting of trees as may be necessary and take further action regarding translocation/cutting of trees and compensatory plantation in accordance with the orders of the Divisional Forest Officer, Rohtak on the same.”

¶21

The Division Bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in the matter of Sunil Kumar Sharma and others Vs. Union of India and others, CM-156-CWPIL-2026 in/and CWP-PIL-70-2026 dated 17.04.2026 has also placed the restrictions by directing as under:-

¶22

“xxx………………………………………xxx…………………………………….xxx

¶23

4. Accordingly, this Court prohibits the cutting of any tree of any age/specie in the State of Haryana, including cutting of approximately 5000 trees proposed to be cut for construction of Zirakpur Panchkula bypass, without permission of this Court, till the next date of hearing.

¶24

¶25

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 - NHAI assures that no tree for construction of proposed bypass will be cut till any further order is passed by this Court.”

¶26