Disposed

Yudhveer Chauhan v. Uttarakhand Forest

NGT10 Mar 2026Original Application No. 54/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal disposed of an application alleging illegal felling of mango trees for a cold storage project. Finding that only 18 out of 32 alleged trees were cut with valid permission, the Tribunal directed compensatory plantation of 10 set trees with a 5-year survival guarantee.

What did the court decide?

Direction to carry out compensatory plantation at 10 times the number of trees cut with 5-year survival guarantee.

Yudhveer Chauhan vs Uttarakhand Forest — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No. 17

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Original Application No. 54/2025 (IA No.619/2025)

¶5

Yudhveer Singh Chauhan Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Uttarakhand Forest & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶8

Date of hearing: 10.03.2026

¶9

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

¶10

Applicant: Mr. Anshul Chauhan, Applicant in Person (Through VC)

¶11

Respondents: Ms. Suman Arora, Adv. for CPCB

¶12

Mr. Adarsh Chamoli, Adv. for R - 1, 2, 9 & 11 (Through VC)

¶13

Mr. Abhishek Darmora & Mr. Vedant Bijalwan, Advs. for R - 8, 10 & 12 (Through VC)

¶14

ORDER

¶15

In this Original Application (OA), applicant has raised a grievance against felling of trees during the implementation of a cold storage project by Mandi Samiti, Vikasnagar, Uttarakhand.

¶16

The applicant alleges that cold storage project was initiated without obtaining necessary permission for felling of 18-32 mango trees. The applicant has further alleged that construction activity had commenced even without permission for felling of the trees from the competent authority and the issue of some inconsistent reports has also been raised.

¶17

Having examined the record, we find that Mandi Samiti, Vikasnagar, Uttarakhand had duly made an application to the Chief Horticulture Officer, Dehradun seeking permission for felling of 32 trees and considering this by order dated 19.11.2024, permission was granted for felling of 18 trees by imposing certain conditions.

¶18

¶19

It has been pointed out that in compliance of the said permission, only 18 trees have been cut and permission dated 19.11.2024 placed on record as annexure R-14 reflects that condition of compensatory plantation twice the number of trees cut has been imposed. It is submitted that this condition has been imposed in compliance of Section 7 of the UP Protection of Trees Act, 1976. After the said enactment, almost 40 years have passed and presently in almost all the cases, compensatory planation of 10 times of the trees cut is being directed by the Tribunal and other Courts. Hence, in this matter also, project proponent must plant 10 times of the trees which have been cut in pursuance to the permission which has been granted by the competent authority on 19.11.2024.

¶20

The Counsel for the respondent authority and project proponent have fairly submitted that if such a direction is issued by the Tribunal, same will be duly complied with.

¶21

We do not find any illegal felling of trees in the present matter as 18 trees have been cut after due permission. Hence, no violation is noticed, therefore, OA is disposed of directing the project proponent to carryout the compensatory plantation of 10 times of the trees which have been cut and project proponent will ensure their survival atleast for a period of five years which will be monitored by respondent nos. 1 and 2. For the plantation of additional trees, if suitable place is not available in the premises of the project proponent then respondent no.2 will identify some suitable place for this purpose.

¶22

Pending IA is also disposed of.

¶23

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶24

¶25

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶26

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶27

March 10, 2026 Original Application No. 54/2025 (IA No.619/2025) JG.

¶28

Yudhveer Chauhan v. Uttarakhand Forest

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yudhveer Chauhan v. Uttarakhand Forest

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

Bombay Environment Action Group vs Union of India

Arvind Dube vs

Mr. Tellam Naresh vs State of Telangana

Vijendra Singh Chiranjeev vs

Neeraj Chaudhary vs

Lakshmikant Tiwari vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Rajendra Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Dr Sandeep Kumar Gupta vs State of Haryana

Residents Welfare Association Savita Vihar vs Irrigation & Flood Control Department

Abhijeet Bansal vs State of Punjab

Abhijeet Bansal vs State of Punjab

Anti Corruption and Crime Control Force through Its Member Raj Kumar vs Delhi Pollution Control Committee

Anti Corruption and Crime Control Force through Its Member Raj Kumar vs Delhi Pollution Control Committee

Prahlad Roy Goenka vs Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Jal Shakti