Disposed

Ajay Pratap Singh v. Kanpur Development Authority through Kanpur Divisional Commissioner

NGT19 Feb 2026Original Application No. 429/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought removal of encroachments on a park plot. Tribunal held that since the issue is pending in a PIL before the Allahabad High Court, judicial propriety dictates the NGT must dispose of the application, directing the applicant to intervene in the pending litigation.

What did the court decide?

Granted directions to dispose of the application as the matter is pending in an Allahabad High Court PIL.

Ajay Pratap Singh vs Kanpur Development Authority through… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No. 16

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Original Application No. 429/2025

Ajay Pratap Singh

Applicant

Versus

Kanpur Development Authority & Ors.

¶9

Respondent(s)

¶10

Date of hearing: 19.02.2026

¶11

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

¶12

Applicant: Mr. Ujjwal Malhotra, Advocate for Applicant (Through VC)

¶13

Respondents: Ms. Sthavi Asthana, Adv. for R - 1

¶14

ORDER

¶15

In this original application (OA), applicant has raised the grievance in respect to plot no.559 admeasuring 1.11 acre in Juhi Kalan, Saket Nagar, Kanpur City, Uttar Pradesh, on the plea that it is a park and has claimed the following reliefs:

¶16

“a) Direct the Respondent No. 1 to 6 to take actions and remove the illegal encroachments made by the Respondent no. 7 over the park designated area of Plot 559 admeasuring 1.11 acre in Juhi Kalan, Saket Nagar, Kanpur City, Uttar Pradesh and further restore the said property in its original nature as per the recent layout plan;

¶17

b) Impose penalty/Environmental Compensation on the Respondent No. 7 i.e., Brij Kishore Dubey Smarak Samiti for illegally encroaching the area strictly reserved for park and for felling or removal of trees;”

¶18

Learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1- has pointed out that for the same issue, PIL No.3472/2025 titled as Saurabh Bhaduria vs. State of U.P. & Ors. is pending before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. She has referred to the order dated 10.11.2025 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad in that PIL and has pointed out that this very park is subject matter of the said PIL.

¶19

¶20

Once the issue has been taken up before the High Court then the judicial propriety demands that two Courts should not simultaneously exercise the jurisdiction, as it may result to conflict in the orders.

¶21

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. vs. Yogendera Mohan Sengupta & Anr. reported in (2024) 1 S.C.R. 973 :2024 INSC 30, in the case where the NGT had issued directions even though the matter was seized before the High Court in a Writ Petition, has held that:

¶22

xxx………………………………………..xxx……………………………………..xxx

¶23

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.

¶24

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:

¶25

"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."

¶26

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 in its view, was not in conformity with its judgment, was liable to be set aside."

¶27

¶28

In view of the above, we dispose of the original application as the applicant can file appropriate intervention application in the pending PIL and raise any other incidental issue, if required. For any other surviving environmental issue after the order in the PIL, it will be open to the applicant to approach the Tribunal.

¶29

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶30

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶31

February 19, 2026 Original Application No. 429/2025

¶32

Ajay Pratap Singh v. Kanpur Development Authority through Kanpur Divisional Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Pratap Singh v. Kanpur Development Authority through Kanpur Divisional Commissioner

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

Nazar vs the District Collector

Hemanta Tah vs State of West Bengal

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

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

Ms Qua Water Technologies Pvt. Ltd. through Authorized Person Mr Umesh Bhokare vs Maharasthra Pollution Control Board

S K Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Nehil Gulati vs Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi

Rabindra Kumar Pradhan vs State of Odisha

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

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

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 8/2026 in Original Application No. 459/2018 of Rashmi Singh vs National Thermal Power Corporation NTPC

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

Abhisht Kusum Gupta vs State of Uttarakhand