Disposed

Imran Ali v. Ministry of Environment

NGT10 Apr 2026IA No. 83/2026 in Original Application No. 1270/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The NGT dismissed the application raising a grievance regarding alleged encroachment of a water body. The Tribunal held that parallel proceedings concerning the nature of the specific land were pending before the High Court, precluding its own interim examination, and disposed of the application without any order against other alleged encroachments.

What did the court decide?

No order was made. The OA and pending IAs were disposed of. The applicant retains liberty to approach the Tribunal again after the High Court's final adjudication.

Imran Ali vs Ministry of Environment — Writ and Judicial Review | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No. 15

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

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)

¶5

Imran Ali Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Ministry of Environment, State of UP & Ors.

¶8

Respondent(s)

¶9

Date of hearing: 10.04.2026

¶10

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

¶11

Applicant: Mr. Imran Ali, Applicant in Person

¶12

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

¶13

ORDER

¶14

In this original application, the Applicant, a native of District Bijnor,

¶15

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.

¶16

During the pendency of this OA, IA No. 647/2025 was filed by the Applicant seeking deletion of Respondents No. 5 to 7 on the ground that they were no longer the necessary party as the erstwhile owners had sold the land in question to Respondent No. 8. By the order dated 19.05.2025, the Respondent No. 8 was impleaded. Accordingly, by the order dated

¶17

¶18

24.09.2025, the Applicant was permitted to delete the Respondents No. 5 to 7.

¶19

All the concerned parties have filed their reply and on completion of pleadings, the OA is heard finally today.

¶20

Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant has submitted that Khasra No. 2181/1 area 0.759 hectare is a pond and in support of such a plea he has referred to the Khasra Entries filed as Annexure-1 and also relied upon the pleadings contained in paragraph 6 and 7 of the counter affidavit of the Respondent No. 4 and paragraph 6 and 7 of Respondents No. 2 and 3 and the enquiry report Annexure A-4 and the demolition notices filed as Annexure AA-4/7.

¶21

Referring to the aforesaid, he has submitted that these documents establish that Khasra No. 2181/1 is a water body, therefore, no construction can be allowed on that water body. He has submitted that after the Jamindari Act in the Fasli year 1359, this land was recorded as water body, but in 1970 some wrong entry was fraudulently made and, therefore, land of water body got sold.

¶22

He has raised an alternate argument that in condition no. 22 of the permission dated 27.02.2024 granted by the Nagar Palika Parishad, Kiratpur, Bijnor to Respondent No. 8, it was mentioned that there is an adjacent pond of 7590 sqm. which will not be encroached upon, but the Respondent No. 8 has encroached upon the said pond. According to the Applicant, it is a different pond which is required to be protected.

¶23

Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No. 8 opposing the OA has submitted that the issue if Khasra No. 2181/1 is a water body, is already pending in the second appeal before the High Court. He has pointed out that the action was initiated against the erstwhile owner by issuing the

¶24

¶25

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.

¶26

The Counsel for the official respondents has taken the stand that the land of Khasra No. 2181/1 is a water body and it has been encroached upon, therefore, action has been initiated.

¶27

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶28

The Civil Suit OS No. 586/2013, Ramesh Chand Goyal & Anr. vs. State of UP and Ors . for permanent injunction was filed by the erstwhile owner before the Court of Civil Judge (SD), Bijor which was decreed on 09.12.2015. Undisputedly, this suit was in respect of same land which is subject matter of this OA.

¶29

Against the judgment and decree of trial court, Nagar Palika Parishad, Kiratpur had filed the Civil Appeal No. 14/2018 before the Court of District Judge, Bijnor and the appeal was dismissed by the judgment dated 28.04.2018. The first Appellate Court while deciding the appeal had framed following two points of determination in addition to the framing the issues for decision:

¶30

“1 – Whether the plaintiffs – respondents are owner and in possession of the property in dispute?

¶31

2 – Whether the property in dispute is barren land and land of pond, if so its effect?”

¶32

The first Appellate Court has considered the evidence which was placed on record and has recorded the following finding:

¶33

¶34

“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.

¶35

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.

¶36

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.

¶37

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.

¶38

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.

¶39

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.

¶40

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.”

¶41

Thus, the first Appellate Court has recorded the finding that the land

¶42

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.

¶43

¶44

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.

¶45

Since the second appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad involving the issue of the nature of the land in Khasra No. 2181/1 is pending and the High Court is likely to go into the issue of this land being a pond, therefore, it would not be proper for this Tribunal to exercise the parallel jurisdiction and examine the same issue in this OA.

¶46

Hon’ble Supreme Court also in the matter of The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. vs. Yogendera Mohan Sengupta & Anr., reported in (2024) 1 S.C.R. 973: 2024 INSC 3 has clearly held that parallel jurisdiction should not be exercised by the Tribunal by observing as under:

¶47

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

¶48

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.

¶49

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:

¶50

“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.”

¶51

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.”

¶52

¶53

Hence, in these circumstances, at this stage, we are not inclined to go into the issue if Khasra No. 2181/1 is a water body or not. However, Applicant will have the liberty to approach the Tribunal again in case if any such issue survives after the final adjudication of the suit by the High Court/Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶54

Learned Counsel for the Applicant has raised additional issue that in the sanction letter dated 27.02.2024 issued by the Nagar Palika Parishad, Kiratpur condition no. 22 was incorporated in respect of a nearby pond and the said pond has been encroached upon. If the said nearby pond is different from the pond which is under consideration in this OA, then the Applicant can raise the issue in respect of that pond in a separate OA.

¶55

In view of the above analysis, no order in this OA is required. The OA is accordingly disposed of. All the pending IA’s if any also stand disposed of.

¶56

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶57

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶58

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

¶59

Imran Ali v. Ministry of Environment

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imran Ali v. Ministry of Environment

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T Evelin Murugatham vs the Principal Secretary to Govt. of Tamil Nadu Department of Environment Climate Change and Forests

Rasikh Rasool Bhat vs Government of Ut of Jammu and Kashmir through Chief Secretary

Sri. B. Raghupathy vs Union of India

Joe Fernandez vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Mr. Rashid Noor Khan vs the State of Madhya Pradesh through Its Chief Secretary

Munidei Majhi vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change Represented by Its Secretary

Other vs Other

Naresh Kumar Yadav vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Rasikh Rasool Bhat vs Government of Ut of Jammu and Kashmir through Chief Secretary

Sudhir Prakash Shukla vs Kanpur Development Authority

Sri. B. Raghupathy vs Union of India

News Item Titled "Probe Under Way as Firecracker Explosion Kills Two in Kozhikode" Appearing in the Hindu Dated 06.04.2026 vs

Imran Ali vs Ministry of Environment

T S Singh vs Ministry of Water Resourses Riverr Development and Ganga Rejuvination