-
by sayum
09 February 2026 2:13 PM
“Forest Map and Revenue Records Show Khasra No. 3 is Government Land, 250m Outside Forest Boundary,” National Green Tribunal’s Central Zone Bench at Bhopal, comprising Justice Sheo Kumar Singh (Judicial Member) and Sudhir Kumar Chaturvedi (Expert Member), delivered a decisive judgment in Sunil Kumar v. Union of India & Others, Original Application No. 112 of 2025 (CZ), dismissing allegations of illegal mining and stone crushing within the Raisen Protected Forest Compartment PF-52 in Madhya Pradesh. The Tribunal held that “no forest offence was established and the land in question is conclusively revenue/government land and not part of protected forest.”
“Jurisdiction Under Environmental Law Cannot Be Invoked for Private Vendetta,” NGT Criticizes Applicant’s Bonafides
Opening with strong observations on misuse of environmental jurisdiction, the Tribunal noted:
“Environmental jurisdiction cannot be invoked for personal or competitive vendetta… The applicant approached this Tribunal without clean hands.”
The application filed by Sunil Kumar (also referred to as Sunil Thakur in official documents) alleged that mining and stone crushing operations by one Pradeep Patel were being carried out illegally inside a protected forest area near Village Gondara, Raisen District. However, as the case unfolded, a disturbing narrative emerged—the applicant had previously operated a stone crusher on adjacent land, and had himself been granted mining lease over the same Khasra in 2008, which was not renewed post-2018.
The Tribunal, therefore, held:
“The true grievance of the applicant arises from the non-renewal of his own lease… The proceedings have been instituted not in furtherance of any public cause, but as a retaliatory and vindictive measure.”
Background: Lease and Clearances Followed Due Process, No Encroachment on Forest Land
The original mining lease for Khasra No. 3 (2.105 hectares) at Village Gondara was granted to Pradeep Patel in 2008 and renewed in 2018 after joint site inspections and due approvals. The Forest Department issued multiple No Objection Certificates (NOCs) in 2008, 2015, and 2017 confirming that the land was outside the notified forest area and not subject to any forest rights or disputes.
As recorded by the Tribunal:
“The site is situated 250–277 meters beyond the notified forest boundary, with no tree felling or forest offence found. The area lies entirely within revenue limits.”
The Joint Committee Report constituted by the Tribunal in 2025, comprising officials from the Forest Department, District Collector’s office, and MP Pollution Control Board, confirmed that:
“Khasra No. 3 does not fall within Protected Forest Compartment PF-52 and is recorded as government land in the revenue map.”
Moreover, the 1954 Notification under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act—relied upon by the Applicant—did not include Khasra No. 3, a fact further reiterated by the Collector, Raisen, and the Divisional Forest Officer in their separate reports.
No Violation of Environmental Law, EC Reappraisal Pending Before SEIAA as per Supreme Court Directions
The Tribunal clarified that the project proponent had obtained a valid Environmental Clearance (EC) from the District Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA) in 2018. Post the NGT's 2022 decision in Satendra Pandey v. MoEF&CC, such ECs issued by DEIAAs were to be reappraised by SEIAA.
However, the Tribunal observed that:
“Validity and continuation of EC is governed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s orders in Rajiv Suri v. Union of India (Civil Appeal No. 3799–3800/2019) and not vitiated merely due to pending reappraisal.”
The Supreme Court had explicitly directed SEIAAs to consider reappraisal applications on merits. Since the reappraisal process was underway and timelines extended by apex court orders, the Tribunal held that no illegality could be attributed to the EC at this stage.
It further added:
“Challenge to an Environmental Clearance lies only by appeal under Section 16(h) of the NGT Act. The present Original Application under Section 14 is not maintainable for this purpose.”
On Limitation: No Continuous Cause of Action, Application Barred
Invoking the settled legal position, the Tribunal held that:
“There is no concept of continuous cause of action under Section 14 of the NGT Act.”
Citing Mantri Techzone Pvt. Ltd. v. Forward Foundation [(2019) 9 SCC 496], the Bench ruled that the cause of action arose in 2008 when the lease was first granted and certainly no later than 2018 when it was renewed. Filing an Original Application in 2025 was held to be barred by limitation, both under Sections 14 and 15 of the NGT Act.
On Satellite Imagery and Panchnamas: Tribunal Finds No Evidentiary Value
Referring to the alleged Panchnama dated 29.04.2025 relied upon by the applicant to claim mining inside PF-52, the Tribunal found it lacking in evidentiary value:
“Panchnama is unsigned or illegible and fails to clarify if it was prepared by the Forest Department… Further documentary record conclusively shows the land is revenue land.”
It also reiterated the limited value of satellite imagery in legal demarcation issues, as held in Re: Construction of Park at NOIDA near Okhla Bird Sanctuary, (2011) 1 SCC 744.
Precautionary Measures Despite Dismissal: DFO Directed to Inspect Entire PF-52
Despite finding no violation, the Tribunal issued a preventive oversight direction:
“The Divisional Forest Officer, Raisen, is directed to verify the entire PF-52 area through a Gazetted Officer… If any illegal mining is found inside forest area, necessary action must be taken and compliance report submitted within one month.”
This direction reflects the Tribunal’s approach of environmental vigilance even where no illegality has been legally proven.
Allegations Baseless, Application Dismissed
The Tribunal concluded:
“In view of the Joint Committee report, reports of the Collector and Forest Department, no violation has been found… The application has been filed without clean hands, driven by private motives, and deserves to be dismissed.”
Date of Decision: 06 February 2026
