Allowed

Tanaji Balasaheb Gambhire v. Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Environment and Forest

NGT17 Feb 2026Original Application No. 97/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal addressed filings regarding tree plantation compensation. The project proponent agreed to plant 724 trees, and the Tribunal directed them to do so within three months with specific guidelines. Simultaneously, the Tribunal waived the cost penalty against the Pune Municipal Corporation.

What did the court decide?

Directing the project proponent to plant 724 trees within three months; recalling the order to pay Rs. 50,000 penalty against PMC.

Tanaji Balasaheb Gambhire vs Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Environment and Forest — NGT (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Item No.08

¶2

Pune Bench

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)

¶5

Original Application No. 97/2022 (WZ) I.A. No.166/2022(WZ) and I.A. No.33/2026(WZ)

¶6

Tanaji Balasaheb Gambhire & Ors. Applicants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Union of India, Secretary MoEF & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶9

Date of hearing: 17.02.2026

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. SUJIT KUMAR BAJPAYEE, EXPERT MEMBER

¶11

Applicant: Mr. Tanaji Balasaheb Gambhire, applicant in person

¶12

Mr. Vijay Mhaske, Advocate for applicant

¶13

Respondents: Mr. Pushkal Mishra, Advocate for R-1

¶14

Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocate R-12 to R-16/PMC

¶15

Mr. Savyasachi Bhardwaj h/f Mr. Aniruddha Kulkarni, Advocate for R-3

¶16

& 6 to 8

¶17

Ms. Pooja Natu h/f Ms. Manasi Joshi, Advocate for R-9 & 10.

¶18

Mr. Nikhil Chavan, Advocate for R-17/ SPPU

¶19

Mr. Raghunath B. Mahabal and Mr. Sachin Gore, Advocates for R-22

¶20

ORDER

¶21

In pursuance of our previous order dated 04.02.2026, additional affidavit has been filed by respondents no. 12 to 16-Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) clarifying therein that there is no evidence of transplantation of 116 trees.

¶22

732 trees have been planted by respondent no. 22/project proponent at plot nos. 82 and 85, Fursungi, Pune, details of which are annexed as annexure-C to this affidavit.

¶23

193 new trees have been planted by respondent no. 22/project proponent at survey no. 665/A and survey no. 662 of CTS No. 825 Bibvewadi, Pune, which is the construction site of the project and details of these trees are annexed as annexure-D to this affidavit.

¶24

¶25

1210 trees have been planted by respondent no.22/project proponent at Savitribai Phule Pune University Campus out of which only 202 trees survived, details of which are annexed as annexure-E to this affidavit.

¶26

Thus, total 732+193+202=1127 trees are still alive out of 1293 trees which were to be planted. Hence, respondent no.22/project proponent is now required to plant 183 more trees besides the transplantation of 116 trees.

¶27

The above number is being disputed by the applicant in person and states that according to his calculation, the said number stands as 724 (inclusive of new plantation as well as of transplantation of trees). The said number is agreeable to the learned counsel for respondent no.22/project proponent who says that he is ready to plant these number of trees at a site which is required to be allotted by PMC.

¶28

In view of the consent having been given by respondent no. 22 that he is ready to plant 724 trees, we dispose of this application with the following directions:

¶29

(i) Respondent no.22/project proponent shall plant 724 number of trees at a site to be allotted by PMC within a period of three month from the uploading of this order.

¶30

(ii) These trees shall be of height of not less than 7-8 feet and shall be protected with fencing around it of bamboo etc. which shall be maintained for a minimum period of seven years as per the Statute.

¶31

I.A. No.33/2026(WZ):

¶32

By this application, respondents no. 12 to 16-PMC has prayed for waiver of cost of Rs. 50,000/- imposed by this Tribunal’s order dated 04.02.2026 on the ground that there was no deliberate delay in filing the

¶33

¶34

affidavit. We allow the request and recall that order of payment of Rs. 50,000/- by PMC.

¶35

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶36

Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee, EM

¶37

February 17, 2026 Original Application No. 97/2022 (WZ) I.A. No.166/2022(WZ) and I.A. No.33/2026(WZ) R

¶38

Tanaji Balasaheb Gambhire v. Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Environment and Forest

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tanaji Balasaheb Gambhire v. Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Environment and Forest

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

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

Sunil S Mulye vs Union of India

The Goa River Sand Protectors Network vs the Goa State Environment Impact Assessment Authority

Vasant Krishnaji Vatkar vs Union of India through Secretary

Tanaji Balasaheb Gambhire vs Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Environment and Forest

Tanaji Balasaheb Gambhiretanaji Balasaheb Gambhire vs Union of India through Secretary Moef & Cc

Tanaji Balasaheb Gambhire vs Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Environment and Forest