Disposed

K Hariharan v. the Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu

NGT17 Feb 2026Original Application No. 69/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this environmental application concerning the proposed construction of a Police Academy, the applicant sought a restraint on tree felling. The Tribunal relied on reports from Forest and Police officials confirming District Level Green Committee approval for removing 1,975 trees provided a 1:10 compensatory afforestation plan was implemented. The Tribunal found the allegation of 10,000 trees bei

What did the court decide?

The allegation that 10,000 trees would be cut was rejected as a surmise. The applicant is directed to ensure the proponent complies with the 1:10 compensatory afforestation plan by planting and nurtur

K Hariharan vs the Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu — NGT (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Item No.4:-

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

¶3

Tuesday, the 17^th day of February, 2026.

¶4

[Through Physical Hearing (Hybrid Option)]

¶5

Original Application No.69 of 2025 (SZ)

¶6

IN THE MATTER OF:

¶7

K. Hariharan S/o. Kalimuthu No.10, Subash Chandra Bose Nagar, Vengadamangalam, Chengalpattu - 600 127.

¶8

...Applicant(s)

¶9

Versus

¶10

1. The Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Government Secretariat, Fort St. Goerge, Chennai – 600 009.

¶11

2. The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Department of Environment, Climate Change & Forests, Government Secretariat, Fort St. Goerge, Chennai – 600 009.

¶12

3. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Head of Forest Force) Forest Department, Tamil Nadu, Panagal Maligai, No.1, Jeenis Road, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.

¶13

4. The District Collector, Chengalpattu Chengalpattu – 603 111.

¶14

5. The Tahsildar Vandalur Taluk, Nandivaram-Guduvancherry, Chengalpattu – 603 203.

¶15

6. The Village Administrative Officer Vengadamangalam, Vengadamangalam Road, Rathinamangalam, Chennai – 600 048.

¶16

7. The Block Development Officer Kattankulathur Union, Maraimalai Nagar, NH-45, Chennai-Trichy Highway, Grand Southern Trunk Road, Chengalpattu – 603 203.

¶17

Page 1 of 5

¶18

8. The Police Commissioner Tambaram, Karapakam, ELCOT SEZ, Sholinganallur, Chennai – 600 119.

¶19

9. The President Venkatamangalam, Chengalpattu – 600 127.

¶20

...Respondent(s)

¶21

For Applicant(s): M/s. R. Sankarakutralingam, V.V. Kathiresan, V. Premkumar, M. Amalraj, S. Yuvaraj, Mohammed Munassar & R. Deepak Kanna. For Respondent(s): Dr. D. Shanmuganathan for R1 to R9.

¶22

Judgment Reserved on: 28^th January, 2026.

¶23

CORAM :

¶24

HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

¶25

HON’BLE Dr. PRASHANT GARGAVA, EXPERT MEMBER

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member

¶28

1) Concerned by the large-scale felling of trees, the Applicant has approached this Tribunal by filing the abovecaptioned Original Application seeking restrain order of cutting of trees in Sy. Nos.15, 16/2 and 22 of Vengadamangalam Village, Vandalur Taluk, Chengalpattu District and to identify the alternative site for the construction of the building for the Police Department.

¶29

2) According to the applicant, the proposed construction project on the land classified as ‘Grazing Land’ in Sy. Nos.15, 16/2 and 22 would result in the felling of 10,000 trees. As early as in September 2024, the above site was chosen for the proposal to construct the Police Academy in an extent of 25 Acres, for which the Local Authority had already passed a resolution.

¶30

Page 2 of 5

¶31

3) It is the apprehension of the applicant that the said 25 Acres would result in the cutting of 10,000 trees, leading to ecological and environmental impact. As per the information sought by him under the RTI Act, the Vengadamangalam Panchayat had passed a resolution on 21.01.2022 to transfer the grazing land in Sy. No.22 to the Police Department. The District Level Green Committee is responsible for granting permission for cutting trees. However, the applicant has not stated whether the Police Department had obtained the consent of the Green Committee for the cutting of trees. Hence, notice was issued to the respondents.

¶32

4) In the report dated 19.11.2025 of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Head of Forest Force) , Chennai, it is stated that vide G.O. (Ms.) No.562 of Land Disposal Wing, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, dated 19.12.2024, orders were issued to transfer the land measuring an extent of 20 Acres out of 25.13.0 Hectares in Sy. No.22 of Vengadamangalam Village, Vandalur Taluk, which is classified as ‘Government Poramboke Meikkal’ for the purpose of Armed Reserve Headquarters and other units and to convert the alternative land measuring 20 Acres in Sy. No.99/1 classified as ‘Kallanguthu’ in Keerapakkam Village, Vandalur Taluk, Chengalpattu District, to ‘Meikkal’ . The Panchayat had also passed a resolution in favour of the proposed transfer of the land.

¶33

5) With respect to the availability of Eucalyptus trees, the District Collector had addressed a letter to the District Forest Officer, stating that the land was allotted to the Police Department and the Commissioner of Police, Tambaram, had requested to remove the available trees therein. Accordingly, the number of trees to be removed is 1,975 Eucalyptus trees. The District Forest Officer, Chennai, on 24.04.2025, had addressed the District Collector, Chengalpattu, stating that the Police Department shall plant 19750 trees at 10 seedlings per trees, as it has to remove 1975 trees. The District Forest Officer, Chengalpattu, in his capacity as the Member Secretary of the District Level Green Committee, Chengalpattu District, vide letter dated 19.05.2025 addressed to the District Forest Officer, Chennai, requested that the proposal for removal of trees be submitted to the District Level

¶34

Page 3 of 5

¶35

Green Committee, Chengalpattu. The Commissioner of Police, Tambaram, also requested to submit his action plan for planting seedlings at a 1:10 ratio.

¶36

6) The District Level Green Committee, on 23.05.2025, recorded that the permission for removal of 1975 trees was granted subject to the condition that planting of 19750 seedlings to be done as per the action plan submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police and to get separate permission for removal of the said trees. Further, the trees in the said land should be felled in the presence of the forest officials and handed over the same to the Forest Department. As per the report of the Forest Range Officer, dated 15.10.2025, there is no plantation raised by the Forest Department in Sy. No.15 of the Vengadamangalam Village. The total number of trees of the Forest Department available in Sy. No.16/2 is only 605. However, the above said lands in Sy. Nos.15 and 16/2 of Vengadamangalam Village are not part of the land transferred to the Police Department and the land transferred is only in Sy. No.22. The total extent of area allotted to the Police Department is 8.09 Hectares and the trees of the Forest Department available are 2218 out of 2909. Of these 2218 trees, the number of Eucalyptus trees identified for removal is 1975 numbers only. The remaining 243 trees are not to be cut. As stated earlier, the felling of 1975 trees was carried out in the presence of the Forest Officer. Therefore, the allegation that 10,000 trees will be cut is a mere surmise and there is no truth in the same. It is also undertaken that, as per the action plan submitted before the District Green Committee, trees would be planted.

¶37

7) The report dated 04.09.2025 of the Commissioner of Police, Tambaram City, states that the District Forest Officer undertook a field inspection between 08.04.2025 and 11.04.2025. The total number of 1975 Eucalyptus trees were inventoried and a compensatory afforestation plan at the ratio of 1:10 was already submitted. There are no valuable and old trees available on the said land.

¶38

Page 4 of 5

¶39

8) Since the Police Department has already approached the District Level Green Committee, obtained the requisite permission and furnished an undertaking to implement a compensatory afforestation plan in the ratio of 1:10 by planting 19,750 trees, the applicant cannot have any surviving grievance, particularly when the project pertains to a public infrastructure initiative and the approval was granted pursuant to a public consultation in which no objections were received.

¶40

9) However, it is directed that the Project Proponent shall strictly comply with the order of the District Level Green Committee and ensure that 19,750 saplings are planted and properly nurtured, as stated in the proceedings of the District Level Green Committee.

¶41

10) Accordingly, the Original Application [O.A. No.69 of 2025 (SZ)] is disposed of.

¶42

Sd/-
Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM
Sd/-
Dr. Prashant Gargava, EM
Internet – Yes/No
All India NGT Reporter – Yes/No

¶43

O.A. No.69/2025 (SZ) 17^th February, 2026. Mn.

¶44

Page 5 of 5

K Hariharan v. the Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Hariharan v. the Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu

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

Chidipi Nakula Suresh vs the District Collector

V Veerabadiran vs District Collector

Chandra vs Deputy Commissioner/Chairman Udupi District Sand Monitoring Committee

Ashish Kothari vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Nazar vs the District Collector

Hemanta Tah vs State of West Bengal

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

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

Chidipi Nakula Suresh vs the District Collector

V Veerabadiran vs District Collector

Chandra vs Deputy Commissioner/Chairman Udupi District Sand Monitoring Committee

Tribunal on Its Own Motion Suo Motu Base on the News Item Published Dt 9TH October 2023 in the Hindu Titled Bengaluru Cracker Godown Blast Toll Rises to 14 Three Held vs Karnataka State Pollution Control Board

Fabrique Laundromat Services Private Limited vs Karnataka State Pollution Control Board

Reena Varghese vs Kerala State Pollution Control Board