Dismissed

Raghvendra Chaddha v. State of Uttar Pradesh

NGT15 May 2026Original Application No. 305/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought directions for recording spot inspection, quashing a cancellation of repair permission, and mandating registration of an appeal under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. The National Green Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that the Act is not a schedule enactment under the NGT Act, 2010, and thus lacks jurisdiction to entertain the prayers.

What did the court decide?

Prayers for spot inspection, quashing of cancellation order, and direction to register appeal were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Raghvendra Chaddha vs State of Uttar Pradesh — Service and Employment | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.05 Court No. 1

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶3

Original Application No. 305/2026 (IA No. 375/2026)

¶4

Raghvendra Chaddha Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶7

Date of hearing: 15.05.2026

¶8

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

¶9

Applicant: Mr. Saubhagya Mishra & Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advs. for Applicant

¶10

ORDER

¶11

This Original Application (OA) has been filed by the applicant seeking following reliefs:

¶12

“(i) Direct an independent spot inspection or a review of the historical revenue and municipal records (1927-2022) to confirm that the work undertaken was a bona fide "restoration/repair" of a pre-existing structure and not a fresh illegal construction on a vacant flood plain.

¶13

(ii) Set aside the impugned cancellation/demolition order dated 06.11.2024 passed by V.D.A i.e Respondent No. 2; which is contrary to the previous "Repair/Reconstruction" permission order dated 01.01.2024 passed by Respondent No.2, itself after accepting requisite fees and it is further prayed to decide this Original Application on merit.

¶14

(iii) Issue a Direction to Respondent No. 2 (Varanasi Development Authority) and Respondent No. 3 (Chairman, VDA / Divisional Commissioner, Varanasi) to immediately calculate the requisite appeal fees and formally register/diarize the statutory appeal filed by the Applicant under Section 27(2) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, in compliance with the liberty granted by this Hon'ble Tribunal vide order dated 28.08.2025;

¶15

(iv) Set Aside/Quash the arbitrary report/letter dated 03.11.2025 (Reference No. 136/Zone-2/2025-26) issued by the Zonal Officer, Zone-2, Varanasi Development Authority, which erroneously claims that appeal fees cannot be calculated, thereby causing a legal stalemate and denying the Applicant's right to a statutory remedy;

¶16

¶17

(v) And/or Pass any other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, just, and proper in the interest of justice and to protect the Applicant from the arbitrary and contradictory actions of the Respondent authorities.”

¶18

Counsel for the applicant has referred to the order of the Tribunal dated 12.11.2024 passed in O.A. No. 1172/2024 and order dated 28.08.2025 passed in R.A. No. 13/2025 in support of his plea for entertaining this O.A.

¶19

The record reflects that O.A. No. 1172/2024 was filed raising a grievance against the new building construction illegally on Rani Ghat in Varanasi adjacent to Prahlad Ghat on the bank of river Ganga.

¶20

Before the Tribunal, respondent no.2- Varanasi Development Authority had taken the stand that complaint was received and permission earlier granted to the present applicant was cancelled. Accordingly, Tribunal, taking note of the subsequent development, had disposed of O.A. without adjudicating the issue on merits. Thereafter, applicant had filed R.A. No. 13/2025 and Tribunal had noted that order was passed by respondent no.2- Varanasi Development Authority cancelling the permission in independent proceedings. Tribunal, accordingly, considering the limited submission of the applicant that he had right to challenge the said order, had disposed of the R.A. by observing that if any Appeal is filed by the applicant against the said order that will be decided on its own merits. That observation was made as no objection to such a submission was raised by the other side.

¶21

In this O.A., now, applicant is seeking a direction to respondent no.3- Divisional Commissioner, Varanasi to entertain the appeal and questioning the order of the Divisional Commissioner, Varanasi on page 39 in respect of calculation of fee. It is the admitted position that the appeal has been filed under Section 27(2) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and

¶22

¶23

Development Act, 1973. This enactment is not one of the schedule enactments under the NGT Act, 2010. Hence, for want of jurisdiction, such a prayer cannot be entertained. Hence, O.A. is dismissed.

¶24

Pending I.A. is also disposed of accordingly.

¶25

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶26

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶27

May 15, 2026 Original Application No. 305/2026 (IA No. 375/2026 ) JG.

¶28

Raghvendra Chaddha v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghvendra Chaddha v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Vijay Sawarkar vs Urban Development and Housing Department

News Item Titled Mandideep Bana Pradesh Ka Sabse Pradushit Shehar Prashasan Bana Muuk Darshak Appearng in Nav Duniya Dated 14TH November 2025 vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Letter Petition Titled 1242 Virkshon Ki Avedh Katai Avam Rajay Shasan Ka Sanrakhsan Dated 13TH October 2025 vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Harsukhram S/O Shri Pema Ram vs State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary Mines & Petroleum Secretariat Jaipur.

Abdul Kalam vs State of Madhya Pradesh through Chief Secretary

Badri vs

Samyak Jain vs Chattisgarh Environment Conservation Board

Karn Veer Singh Chauhan vs Chief Secretary

Pradeep Dahiya vs Mines and Geology

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 34/2026 in Original Application No. 33/2026 of Shri Bhagwan Tyagi vs State of Haryana

News Item Titled "Why Flooding Has Forced Dda'S Master Plan Rethink" Appearing in Times of India Dated 22.08.2023 vs

Harduaganj Thermal Power Station Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited vs Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas

Lucknow Omaxe City Residents & Allotters Association (Loraa) vs Ms Omaxe Limited

Lucknow Omaxe City Residents & Allotters Association (Loraa) vs Ms Omaxe Limited