Allowed

Uday Bhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (through Its Chief Secretary)

NGT18 Feb 2026Original Application No. 1246/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Respondents illegally felled eight trees and cut bushes in the Taj Trapezium Zone without Supreme Court permission. The Tribunal imposed an environmental compensation of Rs. 8 lacs and directed the planting of eighty saplings.

What did the court decide?

Ordered Respondents 7 and 8 to pay Rs. 8 lacs compensation to UPPCB and bear the cost of planting 80 indigenous saplings.

Uday Bhan vs State of Uttar Pradesh (through Its Chief… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Court No. 1

¶2

Item No. 14

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Original Application No. 1246/2024 (IA No 115/2026 & IA No 547/2024)

Uday Bhan

Applicant

Versus

State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

¶9

Respondent(s)

¶10

Date of hearing: 18.02.2026

¶11

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

¶12

Applicant: Mr. N.K. Goswami, Adv. for Applicant (Through VC)

¶13

Respondents: Mr. Bhanwar Pal Singh Jadon, Ms. Anjali Sharma, Mr. Shivansh Sharma, Ms. Disha Tiwari, Mr. Somendra Pal Singh Jadon, Ms. Hemlata Singh & Mr. Anuj Verma, Advs. for R - 1, 2, 4 to 6 Mr. Rachit Mittal & Mr. Adarsh Srivastav, Advs. for R - 3 & 9 (Through VC)

¶14

Dr. Shiva Sharma & Ms. Shubhi Mehta, Advs. for R - 7 & 8

¶15

ORDER

¶16

In this original application, the Applicant had alleged illegal and unauthorised felling of 50 trees within the ecologically fragile Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ), specifically in Tikari Garden, Barah Ghat, Ramanreti, Vrindavan. The plea of the Applicant is that this region is of immense ecological, historical, and religious significance and is governed by stringent judicial and statutory protections to preserve its environmental integrity. The Applicant has further alleged that the Forest Officials had recorded only 8 to 10 felling of trees and removal of 26 shrubs without properly ascertaining the number of trees which have been cut and shrubs which have been felled. The Applicant also relies upon the order of the High Court of Allahabad dated 06.09.1994 filed in Civil Misc. Writ No. 6150/1981 and has submitted that by this order, the Respondents No. 7 and 8 were restrained from transferring the land or changing the nature of

¶17

¶18

the land and the writ petition is still pending, therefore, the order is operating.

¶19

Considering the issue involved in the OA, the Tribunal had noticed all the concerned parties who have filed the reply. The OA is heard finally today with consent.

¶20

Having examined the record, we find that the incident of illegal felling of trees had taken place on 08.10.2024 and immediately thereafter on the same day a complaint was made and FIR being FIR No. 0475 was registered for offence under sections 4 and 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Trees Protection Act, 1976 in the Police Station Vrindavan to the following effect:

¶21

“12. First Information contents ( प्रथम सूचना तथ्य):

¶22

नकल तहरीर ... सेवा मे थाना अध्यक्ष महोदय थाना वृन्दावन (मथुरा) ववषय FIR ( प्राथममक सूचना ररपोर्ट दर्ट करने के सम्वन्ध मे महोदय मनवेदन के साथ अवगत करना है कक आर् कदनाक 08.10.2024 को समय लगभग शाम 4.00 बर्े दूरभाष द्वारा सूचना प्राप्त हुई कक वृन्दावन पररक्रमा मागट के समीप सुनरख रोड पर र्ीवा वैकदक अध्ययन संस्थान की भूमम पर पेड कार्े र्ा रहे है सूचना पर ववश्वास करते हुए मैं हमराह श्री पदम मसह वनरक्षक के साथ वताये गए स्थल पर पहुंचे तो पाया गया कक कुछ लोगो द्वारा पेडो को कार्ा गया है जर्सकी ठूठ गोलाई इस प्रकार है 1. पापडी 1 35 CM (2).34CM (3) 40CM (4) 25 CM (5) 34 CM (6) 31CM (7) 25CM (2) वेर ( 1) 25CM (3) अन्य 26 झाकडया आस पास के लोगो से पूछताछ करने पर ज्ञात हुआ कक र्ीवा वैकदक अध्ययन संस्थान के मामलक डा 0 श्री सत्य नारायण दास व ववष्णु दास मनवासी र्ीवा वैकदक संस्थान वृन्दावन जर्ला मथुरा व अन्य - 02 लोगो द्वारा वृक्षो को कार्ा गया है उक्त व्यवक्तयो द्वारा ग्रामीण वृक्ष संरक्षण अमधमनयम 1976 की धारा 4/10 के अन्तगटत अपराध ककया गया है एवम माननीय सवोच्च न्यायालय ररर् वपर्ीशन संख्या 13381/1984 एम 0 सी 0 मेहता बनाम भारत संघ मे पोजर्त आई 0 ए 0 संख्या 527 मे पाररत आदेश कदनाक 8/5/2015 का उल्लघन ककया गया है अतः आपसे अनुरोध है कक उक्त व्यवक्तयो के ववरुद्ध प्राथममकी ररपोर्ट दर्ट करने की कृपा करे। संलग्नक पेडो की फदट वरामदगी ररपोर्ट प्राथी ह 0 jayveer र्यवीर पुत्र श्री स्व० मेव मसह मनवासी भीम नगर थाना फरह मथुरा वनरक्षक मथुरा रेर् मो 0 97591XXXXX | नोर् - मैं का 0 1286 देवेन्र मसह प्रमाजणत करता हू कक तहरीर की नकल शब्द व शब्द कम ् युर्र पर अंककत की गयी। ”

¶23

¶24

In the above FIR the details and number of trees illegally cut were clearly mentioned and the Respondents No. 7 and 8 were named alongwith two other unnamed persons stated to be involved in the illegal felling of trees. The newspaper reports of the next day of the incident have been placed on record reporting the incident of illegal felling of trees.

¶25

The reply on behalf of the Respondents No. 2, 4 and 5 dated 07.02.2025 reveals that on receipt of the complaint regarding illegal felling of trees, action was initiated and the forest officials had reached to the spot and had found illegal felling of 8 trees and 26 bushes and had also identified the offenders which include the Respondents No. 7 and 8. Accordingly, the FIR No. 0475/2024 was registered. The Respondents No. 7 and 8 had surrendered, the illegally cut wood was seized and in the investigation, the Respondents No. 7 and 8 were found to be involved in illegal felling of trees alongwith two other persons and complaint case has been registered before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura. The details of the disclosure so made by the Respondents No. 2, 4 and 5 in their reply affidavit dated 07.02.2025 are as under:

¶26

“DETAILS OF THE INCIDENT AND IMMEDIATE INVESTIGATION

¶27

i. Receipt of Information : On 08.10.2024, at approximately 4:00 PM, information was received regarding the illegal felling of trees on private land belonging to the Jeeva Institute of Vedic Studies, Vrindavan, Mathura, located on Sunarkh Road near Vrindavan Parikrama Marg.

¶28

ii. Immediate Action Taken : Upon receipt of the information, Sub Divisional Forest Officer, Mathura and Range Forest Officer, Mathura along with other officials promptly reached the location of the offence at Jeeva Institute of Vedic Studies, Vrindavan, Mathura to conduct a field investigation.

¶29

iii. Findings of Field Investigation : The on-site primary investigation by the above mentioned officials revealed the illicit felling of eight (08) trees and the clearing of twenty-six (26) bushes. The details of 08 trees is as following:

¶30

Species OF TREES NUMBER OF TREES Papdi 7 (Holoptelea integrifolia)

¶31

¶32

Ber (Ziziphus jojoba)

¶33

¶34

iv. Prima Facie Purpose of Offence : As per report, preliminary findings indicate that the primary objective of the felling was to construct a boundary wall around the land in question.

¶35

v. Identification of Offenders : Based on the immediate field investigation, the following individuals were identified by forest officials as potentially involved in the offence:

¶36

Dr. Satya Narayan Das, Swami of Jeeva Institute of Vedic Studies, Vrindavan, Mathura, and owner of the land.

¶37

Shri Vishnu Das, resident of Jeeva Institute of Vedic Studies, Vrindavan, Mathura.

¶38

Two (02) other unidentified persons.

¶39

True copy of the report (with photographs) of Range Forest Officer, Mathura documenting the illegal felling has been attached as ANNEXURE R1.

¶40

4. It is important to mention here that the concerned authorities took necessary action and the same has been explained below:

¶41

THE ACTION TAKEN

¶42

a. Registration of H-2 Case and a F.I.R.

¶43

Forest Offence Report (H-2 Case No. 13/Mathura/2024-25) dated 08.10.2024 at Mathura range and FIR No. 0475/2024, dated 08.10.2024 at police station, Vrindavan were lodged by forest officials against two named individuals and two unidentified persons.

¶44

The Complaint case (H2 case) and F.I.R. were registered u/s 4 and 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Tree Protection Act, 1976, and for violation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 08.05.2015 in Writ Petition No. 13381/1984 (М.С. Mehta Vs. Union of India).

¶45

b. Surrender of Offenders : That As per report of the Police station, Vrindavan dated 06.02.2025, the following offenders surrendered before the Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I (ACJM-I), Mathura and were subsequently granted bail-

¶46

Shri Vishnu Das surrendered before the Hon'ble Court on 18.10.2024.

¶47

Dr. Satya Narayan Das surrendered on 24.10.2024.

¶48

c. Seizure of Illegally Felled Timber

¶49

The timber obtained from the illicit tree felling was seized by the Forest Department and was placed in custody of the forest department at Mayur Sarankshan Kendra, Vrindavan, Mathura.

¶50

d. Investigation Report & Final Findings

¶51

¶52

Upon conducting a detailed site inspection and enquiry, the Investigating Officer of forest Offence Report (H2 case) Sub Divisional Officer, Mathura concluded that the following persons were directly involved in the illegal felling of 08 trees and their details are given below including the identification of two unknown accused persons:

¶53

Dr. Satya Narayan Das , Swami of Jeeva Institute of Vedic Studies, Vrindavan, Mathura (Owner of the land).

¶54

Shri Vishnu Das , r/f Jeeva Institute of Vedic Studies, Vrindavan, Mathura.

¶55

Shri Anurag Kumar Shukla , r/f Jeeva Institute of Vedic Studies, Vrindavan, Mathura (currently residing at Shital Chhaya 380, Ramanreti, Thana Vrindavan, Mathura).

¶56

Shri Lakut Prasad , r/f Jeeva Institute of Vedic Studies, Vrindavan, Mathura (currently residing at Devi Aatas, Thana Jait, Mathura).

¶57

During enquiry of above mentioned Forest Offence Report (H2 case), Investigation Officer included Violation of Section 7 and 55 (2) of Biodiversity Act, 2002 also.

¶58

e. Filing of Complaint Case

¶59

That after concluding the investigation of above mentioned Forest Offence Report H2 Case), a Complaint Case dated 30.01.2025 has been filed by the forest department before the Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I (ACJM-I), Mathura, seeking the harshest punishment for the offenders.

¶60

It is important to note here that the Ld. Court will after conducting trial give their decision regarding any punitive action to be taken against the offenders and penalty to be paid for illegal cutting the trees mentioned above.

¶61

That the matter before the Ld. Court will be heard on the next date i.e., 05.03.2025, therefore decision is awaited.

¶62

True copy of the report of the Police station, Vrindavan dated 06.02.2025 has been annexed herein as ANNEXURE R2

¶63

True copy of the FIR No. 0475/2024, dated 08.10.2024has been annexed herein as ANNEXURE R3.

¶64

True copy of the (H-2 Case No. 13/Mathura/2024-25) dated 08.10.2024 has been annexed herein as ANNEXURE R4.

¶65

5. It is pertinent to mention here that tree feeling is a serious offence and especially in the Taj Trapezium Zone which is a specified ecosensitive zone as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 08.05.2015 in Writ Petition No. 13381/1984 (M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India). It is submitted here that all necessary action has been taken by the concerned authorities and the Complaint Case filed on dated 30.01.2025 before the Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I (ACJM-I), Mathura, is pending. That the next date given by the Ld. Magistrate in this matter is 05.03.2025, therefore further decision as to taking punitive action is pending.”

¶66

Though the Respondents No. 7 and 8 have appeared, but no contrary

¶67

material has been placed on record. Instead, an application being IA No.

¶68

¶69

115/2026 has been filed by the Respondent No. 7 for appointment of Special Team for conducting the investigation. Having regard to the material which has been noted above, we do not find any substance in that IA. Hence, IA No. 115/2026 is rejected.

¶70

The Hon'ble Supreme Court by the order dated 08.05.2015 passed in IA No. 527 in the matter of M.C. Mehta (supra) had directed the Chairman, TTZ Authority to ensure that no felling of tree in TTZ area takes place without the permission of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said direction was as under:

¶71

“VI) the Chairman, TTZ Authority (Divisional Commissioner, Agra is the ex-officiai Chairman) will taken effective steps to ensure that no felling of trees within the areas falling in TTZ takes place without first obtaining permission of this Hon'ble Court.”

¶72

The above order has been re-iterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while passing the order dated 01.05.2025 on report no. 20/2025 of the CEC in the matter of M.C. Mehta (supra).

¶73

The Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 25.03.2025 passed in IA No. 237739 & 237765/2024 filed in Writ Petition No. 13381/1984 in the matter of M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India & Ors . in a case of illegal felling of trees in TTZ area has held:

¶74

“ΙΑ ΝΟ. 237739 AND 237765/2024 (APPLN. FOR IMPLEADMENT AND DIRECTIONS ON B/O RAM AUTAR)

¶75

REPORT NO.35/2024

¶76

14. Heard Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant - Shri Shiv Shankar Agarwal.

¶77

15. It is true that Shri Shiv Shankar Agarwal has filed an affidavit where he has accepted that he felled 454 trees without prior permission of this Court. We have perused three reports of the CEC. It will take a minimum of 100 years to again regenerateor recreate the green cover created by 454 trees which were brazenly cut without permission of this Court. Notwithstanding the embargo put by this Court which is in force right from the year 2015, he has indulged in this illegality. Destruction of so many trees adversely affects the environment and lives of several human beings.

¶78

¶79

16. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG, submitted that before making any construction on the property on which the trees were in existence, the permission of the TTZ Authority is required. There is an order dated 23rd October, 2024 passed by the Vice Chairman of the Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority directing that no map of the site in question shall be approved till the case is resolved by the National Green Tribunal.

¶80

17. An appeal is made by the learned senior counsel appearing for Shri Shiv Shankar Agarwal that the minimum penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) be reduced. His second contention is that the requirement of compensatory plantation should be modified by permitting compensatory plantation at some other property. There is no reason to show any leniency to a person who has caused huge damage to the environment.

¶81

18. We accept the recommendations in paragraph 14 of the Report No.35/2024 which read thus:.

¶82

“14. After examination of all documents and the information gathered during the site visit it is recommended that:

¶83

a) A penalty of a minimum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One lakh only) per tree felled and removed without the prior permission of this Hon'ble Court shall be imposed on the land owner. Hence for 454 trees felled and removed without the prior permission of this Hon'ble Court a minimum penalty of Rs.4,54,00,000/(Rs Four Crores Fifty-four lakh only) shall be imposed on the land owners. The amount shall be deposited with the Forest Department for taking up new plantations at suitable places in TTZ.

¶84

b) The Forest Department shall also recover the requisite penalty due under the provisions of the UP Protection of Trees Act, 1976 for this illegal felling.

¶85

c) The Forest Department should take punitive action against the land owners for felling 32 trees that were standing in the Protected Forest as per the provisions under the Indian Forest Act 1972.

¶86

d) An entry path to the extant private land has been constructed through the protected forest. Hence Forest Department shall initiate action under the Forest Conservation Act 1980 for illegal breaking of land without prior permission of the Central Government.

¶87

e) The area be restored by planting 422 trees on the private land and 32 trees in the protected forest area at the cost of the land owner.

¶88

f) The Forest Department shall plant and maintain 4540 saplings of Indigenous species (ten times the number of trees felled as per norms applicable for compensatory plantation in TTZ) and another 4540 as penal compensatory plantation (ten times the number of trees felled without the prior permission of this Hon'ble Court) i.e. a total of 9080 saplings at the cost of the land owners, at any nearby place to be provided by land owner which is suitable for plantation. This

¶89

¶90

land shall also be declared as the Protected Forest by the State Government.

¶91

g) The entire timber illegally felled shall be confiscated by the Forest Department and disposed of as per the norms of the UP Forest Department.

¶92

h) The Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority should ensure that no construction of any sort takes place at that part of the extent site where the Forest Department will do the Plantation.

¶93

i) The Chairman, TTZ authority shall ensure compliance of all the conditions/penalties that may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court. The Chairman, TTZ authority shall intimate such compliance to the CEC on a quarterly basis till all conditions imposed by this Hon'ble Court are complied with.

¶94

j) This Hon'ble Court may consider imposing any other penalty for the contempt of this Hon'ble Court committed by the land owners by felling the trees without seeking prior permission of this Hon'ble Court.”

¶95

Hence, the Respondents No. 7 and 8 have not only violated the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Trees Protection Act, 1976, but have also violated the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and have caused environmental damage by indulging in illegal felling of trees and cutting of bushes in an eco-sensitive zone. Therefore, the necessary punitive and remedial action is required to be taken in the matter.

¶96

By cutting the mature trees, the respondents have caused the environmental damage because such illegal felling has resulted in the decrease in the carbon sink to that extent and even if the compensatory plantation is directed, the saplings so planed are likely to take time to grow and compensate for the loss of carbon sink. We also find that the direction on the same line as issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the order dated 25.03.2025 in the matter of M.C. Mehta (supra) is required to be issued in this case also. Hence, we dispose of the OA directing as under:

¶97

(i) Respondents No. 7 and 8 are liable to pay environmental damage compensation @ Rs. 1 lac per tree total (8 x 1,00,000/= Rs. 8,00,000/-) Rs. 8 lacs with the UPPCB. The UPPCB will

¶98

¶99

transfer this amount to the Forest Department of the State, which will utilise this amount for carrying out the compensatory plantation in the next plantation season in the affected area as per norms applicable to TTZ area and submit action taken report to Registrar General of the Tribunal via email at judicial- [email protected], immediately thereafter.

¶100

(ii) The Forest Department of the State will plant 80 saplings of indigenous species (10 times of number of trees as per norms applicable for compensatory plantation in TTZ area), the cost of which will be borne by the Respondents No. 7 & 8.

¶101

(iii) The above action will be in addition to the action already initiated for violating Sections 4 and 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Trees Protection Act, 1976.

¶102

The OA is accordingly disposed of. All the pending I.As’ will also stand disposed of.

¶103

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶104

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶105

February 18, 2026 Original Application No. 1246/2024 (IA No 115/2026 & IA No 547/2024) dv

¶106

Uday Bhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (through Its Chief Secretary)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uday Bhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (through Its Chief Secretary)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Daulat Ram S/O Shri Kuldeep Gena vs State of Rajasthan through District Collector Ajmer

In Re News Item Titled Hyderabad Trees Razed Across 20 Acres at Rajendranagar Students Protest Against Deforestation Appearing in Telangana Today Dated 06.07.2025 vs Telangana Pollution Control Board through Its Member Secretary and Others

K Hariharan vs the Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu

News Item Titled Experts Are Alarmed as 350 Turtles Was Ashore Dead Till January 15 Published in the Newspaper the New Indian Express Chennai E Edition Dated 16 01 2025 vs Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Environment and Forest

Tribunal on Its Own Motion in the Matter of Letter Petition Received from K Gnanasudha Reg Illegal Occupation of Lands and Damaging Public Property and Natural Resources vs Special Chief Secretary to Govt. of Andhra Pradesh Department of Environment Forest Science and Technology

S. Sivaiah Naidu vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Smt. Trishna Sen Singha vs Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority

News Item Titled "Ludhiana: Dairy Waste Destroying Stps Says Seechewal" Appearing in the Hindustan Times Dated 14.08.2025. vs

Hawa Singh Khobra vs State of Haryana

Veena Kumari vs Haryana State Pollution Control Board

Renu Kumar vs Municipal Corporation

Uday Bhan vs State of Uttar Pradesh (through Its Chief Secretary)

News Item Titled "Endangered Gangetic Dolphins Found in Most Tributaries of Ganges Prompting Urgent Conservation" Appearing in Mongaby- India Dated 20.05.2024 vs

Rainbow Environments Pvt. Ltd. vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change