Dismissed

Vijay Singh Rajput v. Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board

NGT24 Aug 2026Original Application No. 75/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal Bench at Bhopal dismissed an application seeking cancellation of mining leases. The Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction to cancel leases and noted the Supreme Court had previously set aside penalty proceedings due to procedural irregularities and inaccuracies in departmental calculations.

What did the court decide?

The original application seeking cancellation of mining leases and constituting an inspection team was dismissed as not maintainable.

Vijay Singh Rajput vs Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board — NGT (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Item No.10

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CENTRAL ZONE BENCH, BHOPAL (THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)

¶3

Original Application No.75/2019(CZ) (I.A. No.106/2026)

¶4

Vijay Singh Rajput Applicant(s)

¶5

Vs.

¶6

State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶7

Date of Hearing: 24.08.2026

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE MR. SUDHIR KUMAR CHATURVEDI, EXPERT MEMBER

¶9

For Applicant (s): None For Respondent(s): Mr. Prashant M. Harne, Adv. for State of M.P. Ms. Parul Bhadoria, Adv. for MPPCB Mr. Mohd. Iquraam, Adv. for R-6

¶10

ORDER

¶11

This application has been filed with the prayer to cancel the mining leases dated 07.02.2017 and 10.04.2018 and by constituting the inspection team to examine the matter.

¶12

This Tribunal directed the Collector and the Mining Department to examine the matter and to assess the environmental compensation or damage and to realize it. The Collector and the Mining Department registered a case and imposed environmental compensation and aggrieved by the order, the Applicant filed a case before the competent revenue court SDM, Banda, District-Sagar, M.P., and the revenue court vide order dated 10.08.2020 dismissed the appeal and order impugned imposing the environmental damage on the Respondent No.6 in this case. The revenue court relied on the Ramnath Dubey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1976 R. N. 453, Section 247 Sl. No.53 of the Madhya

¶13

¶14

O.A. No.75/2019(CZ) Vijay Singh Rajput Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

¶15

Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, it is the responsibility of the person alleging illegal mining to prove it and the appellant/State has not proved any illegal mining.

¶16

Submissions of the learned Counsel for the State PCB are that the District Mining Branch, Sagar, had assessed the value of illegally excavated minerals to the tune of 168,7500 and proposed a penalty to the tune of 675,00,000 as per section 247 (7) of the M.P.L.R.C, 1959. Aggrieved by the order, the Project Proponent challenged the order and questioned was raised with the facts that the matter relates to the demarcation and illegal mining it can only be answered by the District Collector, Sagar, or the Mining Department on the basis of the demarcation.

¶17

Submissions of the learned Counsel for the State are that the Project Proponent/Respondent No.6 preferred a statutory remedy by filing a civil appeal bearing 6389 of 2021 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and challenged the impugned order on the ground of procedural irregularity and denial of adequate opportunity to present its case and upon hearing the parties and considering the issues raised, the Hon’ble Supreme Court remanded back the matter and quashed the impugned order with regard to the proceedings of inspection and calculation of penalty and realization.

¶18

Further the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Project Proponent/Respondent No.6 are that the present application is not maintainable for the reasons that the cancellation of lease or patta and its application lies before the revenue court and this is not appropriate forum for challenging the lease because it is not mentioned in ScheduleI of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.

¶19

¶20

O.A. No.75/2019(CZ) Vijay Singh Rajput Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

¶21

It is further submitted that the calculation and realization has been challenged before the court of revenue and it was dismissed. The appeal against the order passed by the SDM was also preferred which was also held not be not maintainable. The proceedings which have been initiated was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 18.10.2024 passed in Civil Appeal No.6389 of 2021 ( Durgesh Singh Lodhi Vs. State of M.P ), directed that demand notice issued by the State/MPPCB dated 11.08.2021 is not in accordance with law and was passed without hearing the appellant and, thus, the process of penalty and its recovery was set aside and the matter has been again remanded back to this Tribunal.

¶22

In view of the above facts, it is clear that the matter has been finally decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and impugned notice has been set aside. So far as the proceedings are concerned, the matter relates to the demarcation and identification which has not been properly done by the Mining Department and for that purpose, the Department of Mines is solely responsible for wrongly calculating and unnecessary harassing the person who is not responsible for illegal mining and protecting the person who has actually mined the area with the reasons best known to the Mining Officer concerned. The concerned Mining Officer has himself stated in the affidavit and oral statement before the revenue court that he has not examined nor identified nor measured the exact area and the Respondent No.6 was not responsible for the mining. These facts clearly narrate that the Mining Officer has wrongly acted and was not doing his duties sincerely, fairly and honestly and, thus, playing with the State revenue and harassing the public.

¶23

We, therefore, direct the Collector concerned to take necessary action against the concerned Mining Officer wherever he be posted or

¶24

¶25

O.A. No.75/2019(CZ) Vijay Singh Rajput Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

¶26

transferred or retired, and take action after initiating departmental enquiry against the said Mining Officer.

¶27

Since the Hon’ble Supreme Court has turned down the notice, thus, the Respondent No.6 is not responsible for the payment of above proposed penalty and revenue court has found that the criteria of calculation by the Mining Department is illegal, without any authority and beyond the procedure and found that proceedings initiated by the Mining Department were illegal and appeal against the order which was filed by the Mining Department was found not maintainable and dismissed by the Commissioner, Sagar. Thus, this application is not maintainable.

¶28

Further, the Applicant has efficacious and proper remedy to file the appropriate application before the appropriate forum for the cancellation of the lease deed and this Tribunal has no jurisdiction for cancellation of lease deed.

¶29

In view of above, the Original Application No.75/2019(CZ) as filed is not maintainable and the same is dismissed accordingly.

¶30

Pending I.As., if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶31

Sheo Kumar Singh, JM

¶32

Sudhir Kumar Chaturvedi, EM

¶33

24^th August, 2026, Original Application No.75/2019(CZ) (I.A. No.106/2026) AK

¶34

¶35

O.A. No.75/2019(CZ) Vijay Singh Rajput Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

Vijay Singh Rajput v. Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Singh Rajput v. Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jigneshkumar Rameshbhai Patel vs State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat

Dr Subhash C Pandey vs Bhopal Municipal Corporation

Khushi Bagga vs Dhanlaxmi Merchandise Private Limited (Dmpl)

M/S Envirocare International (Chhattisgarh) through Its Authroised Representative Shri Jaspal Singh vs State of Chhattisgarh through Its Secretary Department of Urban Administration and Development

Pratap Chandra Mohanty Aged About 46 Years S/O-Sunakar Mohanty vs 1. State of Odisha Represented by Chief Secretary Government of Odisha

Dasharu Naik and Others vs State of Odisha

Sudhir Kumar Jha vs Central Pollution Control Board

Green Society Costal Corridor vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Dr Subhash C Pandey vs Bhopal Municipal Corporation

Khushi Bagga vs Dhanlaxmi Merchandise Private Limited (Dmpl)

M/S Envirocare International (Chhattisgarh) through Its Authroised Representative Shri Jaspal Singh vs State of Chhattisgarh through Its Secretary Department of Urban Administration and Development

Ajay Shankar Dubey vs Sh Shubhranjan Sen

Vijay Singh Rajput vs Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Saleem Mohammed Bagwan vs Chief Secretary