Disposed

Shri Sandeep Mishra v. State of Madhya Pradesh through Its Principal Secretary

NGT5 Feb 2026Original Application No. 110/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal dismissed an application complaining of illegal tree cutting and construction of a liquor shop. The Tribunal held that the site is revenue land, not forest land, trees were undamaged according to the report, and land use disputes fall outside its jurisdiction to entertain.

What did the court decide?

The Original Application along with Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of.

Shri Sandeep Mishra vs State of Madhya Pradesh through… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.07

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CENTRAL ZONE BENCH, BHOPAL (Through Video Conferencing)

¶3

Original Application No.110/2025(CZ) (I.A. No.95/2025 & I.A. No.136/2025)

¶4

Sandeep Mishra Applicant(s)

¶5

Vs.

¶6

State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶7

Date of Hearing: 05.02.2026

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MR. SUDHIR KUMAR CHATURVEDI, EXPERT MEMBER

¶9

For Applicant (s): Ms. Harshita Tejwani, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant M. Harne, Adv. for State of MP Mr. Om Shankar Shrivastava, Adv. for BMC Ms. Parul Bhadoria, Adv. for MPPCB

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The grievance of the applicant are illegal cutting of trees and construction of wine/liquor shop on the green belt area which is a deemed forest land by Respondent No. 6 located at Manisha Market, Near Shahpura Lake Bhopal (M.P.). The Respondents are trying to destroy the entire green belt and to achieve the said purpose is removing the trees from the subjective land and thereby has destroyed hundreds of trees on the said green belt which acts as a buffer against vehicular pollution. The State Government of Madhya Pradesh in compliance to the directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India 1997 SCC (2) 267 had constituted a state level expert committee fixing the criteria that an area to the extent of not less than 10 ha. having naturally grown trees on an average of 200 trees per hectare may be declared as 'Forest' in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court irrespective of the fact that whether the land is so notified, recognized or classified under any law and 1

¶12

O.A. No.110/2025(CZ) Sandeep Mishra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

¶13

also irrespective of the ownership of the land of such deemed forest land. The criteria and the definition adopted by the State Government of Madhya Pradesh squarely covers the subjective land wherein the respondent no. 6 is illegally operating the Wine/Liquor Shop and hundreds of trees was cut down by the respondent no. 6, in violation of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and guidelines issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh.

¶14

After filing this application notices were issued to the respondent with directions to submit the reply. Reply has been filed. During the course of hearing a joint committee consisting the representative of the Chief Conservator of Forest, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, District Collector, Bhopal and one other representative from the State Pollution Control Board, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, was constituted with directions to submit the factual and action taken report. The report has been filed. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶15

The main grievance of the applicant are :-

¶16

i. Tree cutting.

¶17

ii. Land use.

¶18

iii. Operation of the wine/liquor shop within the area.

¶19

On these points State PCB was directed to visit the site, constituting a committee of four members including the Department of Forest, representative of the Collector and State PCB and they visited the site and submitted the report as follows:-

¶20

I. i) “The Wine/ Liquor shop” Composite Madira Dukan” is located at Manisha Market, Village Shahpura, District-Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. The geographical location of the site is latitude 23°12'7.13"Nand longitude 77°25'34.39"E.

¶21

¶22

O.A. No.110/2025(CZ) Sandeep Mishra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

¶23

ii) The Shahpura Road runs along the southern side of the shop. On the eastern side of the shop, there is a bus stop located adjacent to the shop. Further along the eastern side, next to the bus stop and along Shahpura Road, there exists a green belt (plantation area) maintained by the CPA.

¶24

iii) During the inspection, it was observed that the plantation area contains fully grown trees, ornamental plants, and shrubs.

¶25

iv) No uprooting or damage to trees was observed by the committee during the inspection.

¶26

II. That, during inspection, Panchnama was prepared and signed by the members of the committee.

¶27

III. That, forest department vide its letter dated 23.10.2025 provided information regarding the allegations made by the petitioner.

¶28

i. As per the information received from the forest department road side plantation of 200 plants has been done by the CPA, Bhopal. The Plantation has been transferred to Executive Engg Capital Mandal, PWD Sr. No. 2, Bhopal on 27.04.2023 after completion of maintenance period.

¶29

ii. That, According to Khasra details (136, Shahpura) area of mentioned land is around 0.0640 hectare which is less than 10 hectare and it is revenue land. and as per the Revenue record Khasra No. 136, Shahpura is mentioned

¶30

¶31

O.A. No.110/2025(CZ) Sandeep Mishra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

¶32

as Farm land, not chota bada jhad ka jungle. Hence as per the definition this land cannot be considered as forest/deemed forest.

¶33

IV. In view of the above points, the Committee has observed that the land use status of the area where the liquor shop is located is not clear. The Committee therefore decided to seek information from the concerned department and a letter has been issued to the PWD, Bhopal and the Bhopal Municipal Corporation, seeking information regarding the construction of the liquor shop on the green belt and the permissions obtained for setting up the liquor shop.”

¶34

After perusal of the report, it is clear that there are no damage of trees, thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant are not proved by the report of the joint committee.

¶35

Second question has been raised with regard to land use or operation of the liquors shop.

¶36

Learned counsel for the State and the State PCB have submitted that these are the matters which is the subject matter of Revenue Court or Collector and the applicant may approach to the appropriate forum for redressal of grievances.

¶37

This Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the matter of land use or operation of the liquor shop.

¶38

Learned Counsel for the applicant has moved an application to impleaded the Director of Town & Country Planning through the Joint Director on the ground that there are illegal cutting of trees and construction of wine/liquor shop.

¶39

¶40

O.A. No.110/2025(CZ) Sandeep Mishra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

¶41

So far as the cutting of trees is concerned, there is no evidence and proof that the trees have been cut down and construction of wine and liquor shop is a personal dispute between the parties and they can raise the issue before the appropriate forum by filing an application for demolition of the construction or appropriate remedy before the revenue court which requires proper identification and demarcation of the land. Operation of the wine shop is also not within the domain of this Tribunal.

¶42

Learned counsel for the applicant has raised the issue of the compliance of the T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India case and submitted that :-

¶43

"The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was enacted with a view to check further deforestation which ultimately results in ecological imbalance; and therefore, the provisions made therein for the conservation of forests and for matters connected therewith, must apply to all forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification thereof. The word "forest" must be understood according to its dictionary meaning. This description covers all statutorily recognised forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose of Section 2(i) of the Forest Conservation Act. The term "forest land", occurring in Section 2, will not only include "forest" as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership. This is how it has to be understood for the purpose of Section 2 of the Act. The provisions enacted in the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 for the conservation of forests and the matters connected therewith must apply clearly to all forests so understood irrespective of the ownership or classification thereof.”

¶44

¶45

O.A. No.110/2025(CZ) Sandeep Mishra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

¶46

“The State Government of Madhya Pradesh in compliance to the directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India 1997 SCC (2) 267had constituted a state level expert committee fixing the criteria that an area to the extent of not less than 10 ha having naturally grown trees on an average of 200 trees per hectare may be declared as 'Forest' in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court irrespective of the fact that whether the land is so notified, recognized or classified under any law and also irrespective of the ownership of the land of such deemed forest land. The criteria and the definition adopted by the State Government of Madhya Pradesh squarely covers the subjective land wherein the respondent no. 6 is illegally operating the Wine/Liquor Shop and hundreds of trees was cut down by the respondent no. 6.”

¶47

On the basis of the above, learned counsel for applicant has suggested that the operation of the wine and liquor shop is illegal. We again reiterate that this is not the domain of this Tribunal to examine the validity of the operation of the wine/liquor shop within the private lands and applicant has appropriate remedy or forum to approach before the concerned authorities.

¶48

The report of the committee discloses that the area falls within the revenue land and not within the forest or deemed forest.

¶49

It is further argued that the State of Madhya Pradesh has notified the area within the deemed forest but no evidence has been provided by learned counsel for the applicant to prove this. Similarly, learned counsel has raised the issue that wine shop falls within green belt zone but again no evidence

¶50

¶51

O.A. No.110/2025(CZ) Sandeep Mishra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

¶52

in the support of the same has been provided by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶53

In view of the above facts, the allegations as levelled in the plaint/petition with regard to cutting of trees has not been proved, so far as the, legality of the land use or the operation of the wine shop is concerned, the applicant may approach to the appropriate forum for redressal of grievances.

¶54

In view of the facts, no action is required to be taken by this Tribunal being no environmental matter involved in this case.

¶55

The Original Application No. 110/2025 alongwith I.As. stand disposed of accordingly.

¶56

Sheo Kumar Singh, JM

¶57

Sudhir Kumar Chaturvedi, EM

¶58

05^th February, 2026, OA No.110/2025(CZ) PN

¶59

¶60

O.A. No.110/2025(CZ) Sandeep Mishra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Shri Sandeep Mishra v. State of Madhya Pradesh through Its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Sandeep Mishra v. State of Madhya Pradesh through Its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Chandra Kumawat vs State of Rajasthan

Deepak Singh vs

Sakhubai Patil vs Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (Kspcb)

Sou Moto Newspeaper Article Published on People Samachar Dated 16TH April 2025 vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Venkateshwaran. S vs Vimal Raj M

Sunil Kumar vs Union of India

Suo Moto News Item Titled 22 Coloniyon Mai Zehar Ghol Raha Pani Ganda Itna Ki Nahane Par Sharir Se Aati Hai Badbu Appearing in Patrika News Paper Dated 6TH January 2026 vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Suo Moto Titled 70 Ekad Ke Mor Van Mai Pedon Ki Jagah Jhhugiyan Chandan Ki Chori Dated 5TH January 2026 vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Ramesh Chandra Kumawat vs State of Rajasthan

Sou Moto Newspeaper Article Published on People Samachar Dated 16TH April 2025 vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Ravinder Raghu Yadav vs Shree Cement through Chif Executive Officer

Suo Moto News Item Titled Hazardous Unsafe Drinking Water Puts 15 Percent of City S Population at Risk Appearing Infree Press Newspaper Dated 5TH January 2026 vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Lakhan Singh vs the State of Madhya Pradesh