The applicant challenged illegal construction on land alleged to be a water body. The Tribunal held that since a second appeal regarding the land's nature is pending before the High Court, it cannot exercise parallel jurisdiction. The OA was disposed of without deciding the merits.
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.
Item No. 15
Court No. 1
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Original Application No. 1270/2024 (IA No 82/2026, IA No 83/2026, IA No 188/2026, IA No 647/2025, IA No 542/2024)
Imran Ali Applicant
Versus
Ministry of Environment, State of UP & Ors.
Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 10.04.2026
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER
Applicant: Mr. Imran Ali, Applicant in Person
Respondents: Mr. Vivek K. Tankha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Saurabh Ajay Gupta, Mr. Ritik Gupta, Mr. Ayush Haritosh, Mr. Inder Dev Singh, Mr. Siddharth Dixit & Ms. Anannya Jain, Advs. for R - 8 Mr. Bhanwar Pal Singh Jadon, Ms. Gargi Chaturved, Mr. Shivansh Sharma & Ms. Anjali Sharma, Advs. for R - 1 to 3 Mr. Vikas Kumar Singh, Advs. for R – 4
ORDER
Uttar Pradesh had originally raised the grievance against the Respondents No. 5 to 7 that they had illegally filled up the pond/water body situated in 2181/1, Kiratpur, Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh with garbage and other material and had encroached upon it. The Applicant had alleged that the private respondents along-with the official Respondents No. 4 were carrying out the illegal construction of commercial market place/mall on the water body.
1
24.09.2025, the Applicant was permitted to delete the Respondents No. 5 to 7.
2
notices for removal of encroachment against which the Civil Suit was filed by the erstwhile owner which was decreed. The first appeal has been dismissed and the second appeal at the instance of Nagar Palika Parishad, Kiratpur is already pending before the High Court. Therefore, parallel proceedings should not be conducted by the Tribunal examining the nature of the land.
3
“xxx ……………..…………..……xxx………………………………xxx This fact is also admitted to the defendants/appellants that the plaintiffs-respondents after obtaining permission from Municipal Board, Kiratpur had erected shops and other construction over the disputed and and after completion of construction, house tax was levied and realised from them by the Municipal Board, Kiratpur.
From the oral and documentary evidence, available on record, it is well proved that land of property in suit, which was initially in town area and later on came in municipal area and said land remained Non Z.A. land in consolidation proceedings and entries in the name of Sataya Prakash remained in force and this entries were never challenged in consolidation proceedings. Later on, also the entries made by the Revenue Authority, in the name of plaintiffs and their predecessors remained intact and the same were never challenged by the defendants before the Revenue Authority or Consolidation Authority.
In rebuttal, only one Khatauni of 1359 Fasli has been filed by the appellants/defendants, in which disputed land has been recorded as land of pond and barren land, but the entries made in said Khatauni are not based on any order of competent revenue authority.. How this entry came into existence, there is no explanation on behalf of defendants. As such reliance cannot be placed on Khatauni of 1359. Prior to Khatauni of 1359 Fasli, in land of aforesaid khasra number no entry of pond and barren land is found in any revenue or consolidation record, as is evident from the documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs/respondents.
The authorities, on which reliance has been placed by the appellants, are not applicable in the present facts and evidence adduced on behalf of parties to the suit.
In Om Prakash vs. D.D.C. Faizabad (H.C. L.B.) cited in R.D. 1996 Supplementary page 354, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held that entry in Khatauni made by Lekhpal without order of competent authority, no reliance can be placed.
As such from the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties, the plaintiffs are found the owner and in possession of the property in dispute and said land is not barren land or land of pond. Accordingly, both the points of determination are disposed of in favour of respondents and against the appellants.
At the upshot of discussion I am of the view that impugned judgment and decree needs no interference and this civil appeal has no force, same deserves to be dismissed with costs.”
is not barren land or land of the pond. Against this judgment of the first Appellate Court, second Appeal No. 330/2020 has been filed by the Nagar Palika Parishad, Kiratpur. A copy of the memo of second appeal has been placed on record and it has been pointed out whether the Khasra No.
4
2181/1 and 2182/2 are registered pond situated within the limits of Nagar Palika Parishad, Kiratpur, District Bijnor, is an issue raised therein. This second appeal is pending before High Court.
“xxx …………………………….xxx……………..……xxx….…………………xxx
109. In view of the settled legal position, we are of the view that the continuation of the proceedings by the NGT during the pendency of the writ petitions before the High Court was not in conformity with the principles of judicial propriety. Needless to state that the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, insofar as its territorial jurisdiction is concerned, has supervisory jurisdiction over the NGT. Despite pendency of the proceedings before the High Court including the one challenging the interim order dated 12th May 2022 passed by NGT, the NGT went ahead with the passing of the second order impugned herein.
110. It will also be relevant to refer to the observations of this Court in the case of Raghu Ramakrishna Raju Kanumuru (Member of Parliament) (supra) , which read thus:
“13. We are, therefore, of the considered view that it was not appropriate on the part of the learned NGT to have continued with the proceedings before it, specifically, when it was pointed out that the High Court was also in seisin of the matter and had passed an interim order permitting the construction. The conflicting orders passed by the learned NGT and the High Court would lead to an anomalous situation, where the authorities would be faced with a difficulty as to which order they are required to follow. There can be no manner of doubt that in such a situation, it is the orders passed by the constitutional courts, which would be prevailing over the overs passed by the statutory tribunals.”
111. It can be seen from the perusal of the orders of the NGT itself that though the NGT was informed about the High Court being in seisin of the proceedings, it went on to hold that the judgment given by it was binding and therefore, the draft development plan, which 8 in its view, was not in conformity with its judgment, was liable to be set aside.”
5
Prakash Shrivastava, CP
Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM
April 10, 2026 Original Application No. 1270/2024 (IA No 82/2026, IA No 83/2026, IA No 188/2026, IA No 647/2025, IA No 542/2024) dv
6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the National Green Tribunal should examine the nature of the disputed land as a water body while a second appeal pending before the High Court challenges the same issue.
Whether parallel proceedings by the Tribunal are permissible when the High Court is seized of the identical issue regarding the land's status.
Whether the applicant has a cause of action to approach the Tribunal again after the final adjudication by the High Court concludes.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Om Prakash vs. D.D.C. FaizabadDistinguished¶38
Om Prakash vs. D.D.C. Faizabad (H.C.L.B.) cited in R.D. 1996 Supplementary page 354
The State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Yogendera Mohan SenguptaRelied on¶46
The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. vs. Yogendera Mohan Sengupta & Anr. (2024) 1 S.C.R. 973: 2024 INSC 3 · Who else cites this
Raghu Ramakrishna Raju KanumuruRelied on¶49
Raghu Ramakrishna Raju Kanumuru (Member of Parliament)
Imran Ali
Ministry of Environment
State of UP
Nagar Palika Parishad, Kiratpur
Bhanwar Pal Singh Jadon
Ramesh Chand Goyal
Prakash Shrivastava
Afroz Ahmad
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
