National Green Tribunal
Rama Shankar Agarwal vs Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd on 22 January, 2026
Item No.06
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
CENTRAL ZONE BENCH, BHOPAL
(Through Video Conferencing)
Original Application No.82/2025(CZ)
(I.A. No.17/2026)
Rama Shankar Agarwal Applicant(s)
Vs.
Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. & Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of Hearing: 22.01.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. SUDHIR KUMAR CHATURVEDI, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant (s): None.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lokendra Singh Kachhawa, Adv. for R-2
Mr. Dhruv Sharma, Adv. for R-6
Mr. Vaibhav Pancholy, Adv.
(for Mr. Vaibhav Thakuria, Adv. for R-5)
Mr. Rachit Soni, Adv.
(for Mr. Shoeb H. Khan, Adv. for State of Rajasthan)
ORDER
1. This application has been filed under section 14 & 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 for the following relief :-
i. Direct the Respondent No. 6 - Ajmer Development Authority and the appropriate local authorities to immediately take action for removal/demolition of the unauthorized commercial construction being operated under the name of Param Automobiles (Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Showroom), situated along NH-448/NH-58 at Sendriya, Parbatpura, Ajmer, which falls within the notified green belt under the Ajmer Master Development Plan 2033 and has been constructed without 1 O.A. No.82/2025(CZ) Rama Shankar Agarwal Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.& Ors.
layout plan approval, building permission, or land use conversion.
ii. Direct the Respondent No. 3 - National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to forthwith develop and maintain a green belt of appropriate width along both sides of NH-448 and NH-58, in accordance with the Green Highways (Plantation, Transportation, Beautification and Maintenance) Policy, 2015 and the binding directions issued by this Hon'ble Tribunal in OA No. 386/2016 (CHETNA v. NHAI & Ors.). iii. Issue directions for restoration of the environment in the affected area by way of compensatory afforestation, landscaping, soil rejuvenation, and plantation of native tree species along the stretch where the illegal construction and tree felling has taken place, under supervision of an independent committee appointed by this Hon'ble Tribunal. iv. Impose appropriate environmental compensation upon Param Automobiles and other persons responsible for encroaching upon the green belt and illegally felling plantation trees, in accordance with the "Polluter Pays" principle, to be recovered and utilized exclusively for ecological restoration and green development of the said stretch.
v. Direct the Ajmer Development Authority and NHAI to ensure strict implementation of the green belt zoning provisions as per the Ajmer Master Development Plan 2033 and to take immediate steps for protection of all other green belt areas falling within their respective jurisdictions." 2 O.A. No.82/2025(CZ) Rama Shankar Agarwal Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.& Ors.
2. Notices were issued to the respondents to submit the reply. Reply has been filed. During the course of hearing the committee was constituted with direction to submit the factual and action taken report.
3. The members of the committee consisting representative of the Collector, Ajmer, Ajmer Development Authority and Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board visited the site and submitted the report.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
5. During the course of hearing an application for deletion of the name of respondent no. 1 was filed and this Tribunal vide order dated 28.10.2025 is passed in order as follows:-
i. This application has been moved under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC (old) on behalf of the Respondent No.1, for deletion of name from the array of parties on the following points:
a) That the relationship between Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., and its authorised dealers, including Respondent No. 2, is governed by a Principle-to-Principle Dealership Agreement. Under the said agreement, the dealer functions as an independent business entity, solely responsible for the acquisition, establishment, and operation of its premises, and for ensuring compliance with all applicable statutory, regulatory, and environmental requirements at its own cost and responsibility.
Applicant has no role in site identification, land acquisition, construction, building plan approval, or fulfilment of municipal, state, or central 3 O.A. No.82/2025(CZ) Rama Shankar Agarwal Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.& Ors.
environmental compliance in relation to the dealership's premises.
b) The Applicant has been incorrectly impleaded as Respondent No. 1, through its Chairman, in addition to Param Automobiles, which is arrayed as Respondent No. 2. However, the Petition does not contain any averment, factual allegation, or material on record to suggest any direct role, authorization, or involvement of the Applicant or that of its Chairman in the alleged construction activity or environmental violations at the said site.
c) The contractual framework between the Applicant and Respondent No.2 extends beyond the Dealership Agreement to include the Mahindra & Mahindra Code of Conduct for Business Partners (Annexure 5), which is a binding document incorporated into the relationship with all authorised dealers. This Code expressly delineates the obligations of dealers with respect to environmental protection, workplace safety, and occupational health, thereby reinforcing the dealer's sole accountability for these matters.
d) That the "Clause 13 Protecting the Environment" of the Code of Conduct categorically provides that:
"Business Partners shall comply with all applicable environmental / pollution control laws and regulations wherever 4 O.A. No.82/2025(CZ) Rama Shankar Agarwal Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.& Ors.
they are based or operate, including the policies available on M&M's website and applicable business portals developed for the purpose of doing business."
e) The "Clause 14- Providing Safe and Healthy Environment" of the Code of Conduct, which goes further to mandate that:
"Business Partners shall maintain and provide a safe and healthy work environment for all personnel that meets or exceeds applicable legal standards for occupational safety and health. Business Partners will comply with all applicable laws regarding working conditions, including worker health and safety, sanitation, fire safety, risk protection and electrical, mechanical, structural and machine safety. They shall have well- established, safety procedures, preventative maintenance, and protective equipment in compliance with the law. Business Partners shall have a Business Continuity Plan to minimise business impacts in the event of major disruption like flood, fire, earthquake, strikes or any riots etc. They shall have a written Emergency Response Plan to minimise harm to the employees, local community and environment and risk of 5 O.A. No.82/2025(CZ) Rama Shankar Agarwal Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.& Ors.
business disruption to M&M in the event of a disaster. Business Partners will adhere to M&M's Sustainability Policy available on its website."
ii. It is further argued that the Respondent No. 1, is neither privy to nor does it exercise any control over the site selection, land acquisition, construction activities, environmental clearances, municipal permissions, or day-to-day operations undertaken by Respondent No. 2, in relation to its dealership premises. The relationship between Respondent No.1 and its authorised dealers is strictly on a Principal-to-Principal basis, with each party functioning as an independent legal and business entity solely responsible for its own acts, omissions, representations, and compliance with all applicable local, state, and central laws. Respondent No.1 has no operational role in, or oversight of, the independent decisions or activities of Respondent No. 2, including those violations of the guidelines caused by Respondent No. 2 and forming part of complaint.
iii. The Applicant has relied on the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other citations as follows:-
a) Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. Antonio Paulo Vaz and Ors. AIR 2021 SC 1194
b) The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in Thomas Vally vs. Mercedes-Benz India IV (2016) CPJ 84 (Maha.) 6 O.A. No.82/2025(CZ) Rama Shankar Agarwal Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.& Ors.
c) Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2015 SC 923
d) Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. v.
Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Pvt.
Ltd., AIR 2010 SC 3109
e) Hindustan Lever Limited Vs Mr. Lalit Wadhwa and Anr., MIPR 2007 (3) 192, 2007 (35) PTC 377 Del
f) Mrs. Bhavna A. Patel & Anr. vs Mr. Krishnamurthy Venkatraman CS (OS) 1768/2007 iv. It is further argued that the Chairman of the Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. was in any way not involved in the site selection, construction activities and Environmental Clearance or day-to-day operation of Respondent No.2 and thus, neither necessary nor proper party. No objection has been filed. Parties present have no objection.
v. Accordingly, the I.A. No.124/2025 is allowed and the name of the Respondent No.1 is deleted from the array of Respondents. The application stands disposed of accordingly."
6. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 Ajmer Development Authority are that the commercial establishment comprising a car showroom and service centre being operated by M/s Param Automobiles is situated partly over khatedari agricultural lands situated in Village Sendariya, Tehsil and District Ajmer, recorded under the following Khasra numbers: 1237, 2483/1236, 2482/2231, 7 O.A. No.82/2025(CZ) Rama Shankar Agarwal Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.& Ors. 2489/1236, and 1235. These lands are entered in the revenue records as agricultural holdings and are privately owned.
7. It was observed that between the aforementioned privately held parcels and National Highway No. 448 (NH-448), the showroom had kept some open land with trees planted on such open land located in Khasra Nos. 1167, 2509/1167. Similarly, with respect to certain portions of Khasra Nos. 1167 and 1237/2230, the abovesaid showroom has constructed boundary wall and provisioned the same as parking area.
8. That the Khasra Nos. 1237, 2483/1236, 2482/2231, and 2489/1236 have been recorded in the revenue records as agricultural land. Khasra Nos. 1235 and 2509/1167 have been recorded in the name of Ajmer Trenching Ground, Municipal Corporation. Similarly, Khasra Nos. 1167 and 1237/2230 stand recorded in the name of the Ajmer Development Authority in the revenue records and for part of the Authority's designated land holdings. That such activities are in direct contravention of the prescribed land use zoning, and amount to an unauthorised use and commercial exploitation of public land held by the Authority. In view of the findings ascertained upon verification of the site, examination of revenue records, the answering Respondent undertook the following administrative and legal actions.
9. That on 25.07.2025, the Authority issued statutory notices under Section 17, read with Sections 31 to 35 of the Ajmer Development Authority Act, 2013, to the following individuals/entities found involved in unauthorised construction activity:
a) M/s Param Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., through its Director Shri Mehul Shah.
b) Shri Jagdish S/o Nathusingh, resident of Gulabbari, Ajmer. 8 O.A. No.82/2025(CZ) Rama Shankar Agarwal Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.& Ors.
c) Shri Naveen Kachhawa S/o Mohanlal, resident of Janata Colony, Ajmer.
d) Shri Rupesh Leelani S/o Murlidhar Leelani, resident of Sindhwari, Malusar, Ajmer.
10. The said notices were issued for raising permanent commercial structures and operating a showroom/service centre over khatedari agricultural lands without obtaining:-
a) Land use conversion under Section 90-A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, which is a prerequisite for changing the use of agricultural land for non-agricultural (commercial) purposes.
b) Approval of the layout plan from the competent planning authority, as mandated under the Ajmer Development Authority Act, 2013.
c) Sanction of the building map or construction plan, in accordance with the prevailing Building Regulations and Development Control Rules; and
d) Any other statutory permission, clearance, or no-objection certificate (NOC) that is required for lawful development and commercial use of land within the jurisdiction of the Authority.
11. In addition thereto, a separate notice under Section 67 of the Ajmer Development Authority Act, 2013 was issued on 25.07.2025 to M/s Param Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. for having encroached upon land recorded in the ownership of the Ajmer Development Authority, specifically Khasra Nos. 1167 and 1237/2230, which fall within the designated green buffer zone under the Master Development Plan, 2033. The said notice called 9 O.A. No.82/2025(CZ) Rama Shankar Agarwal Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.& Ors. upon the encroacher to show cause as to why the unauthorized occupation should not be removed, and further cautioned that failure to comply would render the entity liable for eviction, demolition, and penalty proceedings in accordance with law.
12. That recognizing that certain portions of the encroached land (particularly Khasra Nos. 1235 and 2509/1167) were found to be recorded in the name of the Municipal Corporation, Ajmer, the authority formally communicated the matter to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ajmer, vide Letter No. ADA/Land. Allot. /Zone South /2025/31 dated 04.08.2025, requesting that appropriate proceedings be initiated against the occupants for violation of municipal land use and encroachment norms. In furtherance of procedural due diligence and to offer an opportunity of compliance, the Authority facilitated the processing of online land conversion applications (Form 90-A) submitted by the parties. The records indicate that M/s Param Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. submitted its application on 05.08.2025.
13. It is further submitted that as per the Master Development Plan, 2023 as well as the revised Master Development Plan, 2033, the land abutting National Highway No. 448 (NH-448), beyond the prescribed 30- meter- wide plantation belt (Green Buffer Zone), has been specifically earmarked and reserved for Public Utility Corridor (PUC) purposes. This zoning classification is a part of the regulated land use planning framework established under the Development Plans sanctioned for Ajmer region and is intended to preserve the ecological integrity and urban service infrastructure of the area.
14. The Ajmer Development Authority has acted diligently, promptly, and in accordance with law upon identification of unauthorized construction and encroachment over the subject land. All necessary statutory notices 10 O.A. No.82/2025(CZ) Rama Shankar Agarwal Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.& Ors. have been issued to the concerned parties, the matter has been duly escalated to the Municipal Corporation where applicable, land conversion applications are under process as per the prescribed procedure, and a comprehensive factual and technical assessment has been undertaken by the Town and Planning Wing of the Authority.
15. The Members of the committee visited the site and submitted the report and observations as follows :-
i. M/s Param Automobiles is a car dealership showroom cum service centre of Mahindra & Mahindra, which is operational since 31.03.2022 at Khasra No. 1107 (old) (New 1235/2231, 1236, 1237), Village Sendariya, Tehsil & District Ajmer. As per lease agreement dated 25.03.2022, the unit was initially operational in rented premises, which was later purchased by the project proponent though sale deed dated 11.07.2022. ii. However, as per Tehsildar ADA and Patwari ADA site report dated 18.07.2025 and revenue record of the Ajmer Development Authority (ADA), the aforesaid showroom is established on Khasra Nos. 1237, 2483/1236, 2482/2231,2489/1236 and 1235. Besides, the unit has also encroached upon a part of Khasra Nos. 1167 and 2509/1167 by partly leaving open and partly carrying out plantation. The unit has also included a part of Khasra No. 1167 and 1237/2230 in its gated premises, which is used for parking.
Khasra Nos. 1237, 2483/1236, 2482/2231 and 2489/1236 are recorded as "khatedari agricultural land" in the revenue record, Khasra No. 1235 and 2509/1167 are recorded 11 O.A. No.82/2025(CZ) Rama Shankar Agarwal Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.& Ors. in the name of Nagar Parishad Trenching Ground while Khasra. Nos. 1167 and 1237/2230 are recorded in the name of ADA. iii. The proponent informed during the Joint Committee visit that incorrect Khasra No. of their land is entered in the revenue record, for which, they have filed a case (L. R. No. 64/2022) in the Hon'ble Court of the SDM in the year 2022 for correction of Khasra number(s) entered in the revenue record. The matter is sub-judice.
iv. The land of the unit is neither converted for use for commercial purpose, nor does the proponent have approved building and layout plan. Accordingly, Ajmer Development Authority (ADA) vide its letters dated 25.07.2025 issued notice to the unit under section 17 read with sections 31 to 35 of the Ajmer Development Authority Act, 2013 for carrying out the construction/ development work without prior permission of ADA and under section 67 of the of Ajmer Development Authority Act, 2013 for carrying out encroachment on the ADA land.
v. Subsequently, the proponent applied for conversion of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural use on 05.08.2025, which is pending with ADA.
vi. However as per the Zonal development plan, land-use of the land in question is reserved for 30 m "Plantation Belt" followed by "Public Utility" and the land is being used for showroom/ service center at present which is a commercial activity and not allowed on the said land.
12 O.A. No.82/2025(CZ) Rama Shankar Agarwal Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.& Ors. vii. In continuation to the site inspection report of ADA dated 18.07.2025 and notices dated 25.07.2025 issued by ADA, the site of M/s Param Automobiles was again visited by Patwari, ADA on 28.08.2025 to verify the status of encroachment done by the unit. As per the site report, M/s Param Automobiles has removed the wall/ grill which existed in front of the showroom as encroachment on Khasra No. 1167 and 1237/2230. Vehicle parking facility made by the unit on ADA land has also been vacated. Besides, for removal of the transformer and meter room from Khasra No. 1167, which is ADA land, the General Manager of M/s Param Automobiles, Sh. Hariom Derashri has written a letter to the Zonal Manager of Tata Power Parbatpura.
On some part of the ADA land adjacent to the highway Khasra No. 1167 and Nagar Nigam land Khasra No. 2509/1167, trees were found planted which is same as per earlier site report dated 18.07.2025.
viii. The unit comprises a car showroom and a car service center.
The service center carries out vehicle servicing of 35 cars per day on an average. Approx. water requirement for industrial purpose (car washing) is 3-4 KLD, which is met through a borewell situated within the premises. The borewell is provided with a water flow meter to measure the water requirement of the unit. To treat the wastewater generated from car washing, the unit has provided a filter plant (to remove physical impurities) and an effluent treatment plant (ETP) of 5 KLD. Water meters have been provided at the inlet and outlet of ETP to measure the daily waste water generated and treated by the unit. Treated water from the ETP is used back in the process of 13 O.A. No.82/2025(CZ) Rama Shankar Agarwal Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.& Ors.
car washing. The unit has maintained logbooks of fresh water consumption and wastewater treated through ETP. Besides, the unit has also installed a silent DG set of 62.5 kVA which is provided with stack of adequate height as per norms. ix. For disposal of hazardous waste generated from the unit, like ETP sludge, contaminated cotton rags & cleaning material, used/ spent oil, the unit has done agreement with M/s Shree Cement, Beawar and M/s OMG Lubricants, Kishangarh, Ajmer. Separate covered storage rooms have been provided within the unit premises for storage of hazardous waste till its disposal. x. 10. The unit needs to obtain Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 for service center, however, prior Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate were not obtained by the unit. The proponent applied for the same on 17.07.2025, which is under process with the RSPCB.
xi. The proponent has taken adjoining land bearing Khasra No. 1107 on rent for use as a stockyard wherein extra cars of the showroom are parked.
xii. A major allegation raised by the applicant in the Original Application is that regarding felling of trees by the proponent. However, the joint committee did not find any remains/ proof at site regarding felling of trees during their visit on 11.08.2025. xiii. The unit has obtained registration from the Labor Department and license from the Factories & Boilers Department. 14 O.A. No.82/2025(CZ) Rama Shankar Agarwal Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.& Ors.
Conclusion i. The unit is being operated without land conversion, approved layout and building plans from ADA. ii. The unit has not obtained prior Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate from RSPCB for the car service center. Action Taken i. ADA has issued notices to the unit under the relevant Acts of ADA Act, 2013 for carrying out the construction/development work without prior permission of ADA and for carrying out encroachment on the ADA land.
ii. RSPCB has issued a show cause notice to the unit for observed deficiencies in the applications for Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate."
16. The submission of the learned counsel for the State Pollution Control Board are that the service center carries out vehicle servicing of 35 cars per day on an average. That the water requirement for industrial purpose (car washing) is 3-4 KLD, which is met through a borewell situated within the premises of the unit and the borewell is provided with a water flow meter to measure the water requirement of the unit. That to treat the wastewater generated from car washing, the unit has provided a filter and an effluent treatment plant (ETP) of 5 KLD. Water meters have been provided at the inlet and outlet of ETP to measure the daily waste water generated and treated by the unit. Treated water from the ETP is used back in the process of car washing. The unit has maintained logbooks of fresh water consumption and wastewater treated through ETP. Besides, the unit has also installed a silent DG set of 62.5 kVA which is provided with stack of adequate height as per norms.
15 O.A. No.82/2025(CZ) Rama Shankar Agarwal Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.& Ors.
17. The disposal of hazardous waste generated from the unit, like ETP sludge, contaminated cotton rags & cleaning material, used/ spent oil, the unit has done agreement with M/s Shree Cement, Beawar and M/s OMG Lubricants, Kishangarh, Ajmer. The Project Proponent has provided separate covered storage rooms within the unit premises for storage of hazardous waste till its disposal.
18. That the unit needs to obtain Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 for service center, however, prior Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate were not obtained by the unit. The proponent applied for the same on 17.07.2025, which is under process with the RSPCB.
19. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that there is no cause of action and the applicant on the basis of any RTI application cannot make a choice in order to create cause of action so as to bring it within the period of limitation in order to initiate legal proceedings. He has also file the copy of the order dated 01.12.2022 passed in original application no. 63/2019(WZ), relevant paras are quoted below :-
i. "The learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 11 has placed reliance of the Judgment Jai Javan Jai Kisan and ors. v. Vidarbha Cricket Association and Ors. [MANU / GT / 0006 / 2017), where-in relevant para no. 11 is as follows:-
"11. Conjoint reading of Section 14 and 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act reveals that essentially any application moved for claiming reliefs there-under must necessarily present a Civil case wherein substantial question relating to environment or environmental 16 O.A. No.82/2025(CZ) Rama Shankar Agarwal Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.& Ors.
damage arising under the enactments specified in the Schedule-I of the Act (including accident occurring while handling any hazardous substance) is involved. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that it is the substantial question relating to the environment or environmental damage as aforesaid which gives rise to the cause for an action under the provisions of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. In the present case, the question raised is about restoration of the environmental damage on account of injury to it as a result of raising VCA Stadium without EC or consent to operate under the provisions of Schedule-I Acts viz Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981 and Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974. As stated herein above, the causes of injury are insufficiency of Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP), open species, parking spaces and tree cover.
These facts were very much manifest when the VCA stadium became functional in the year 2008. In our opinion, therefore, the cause of action for the present Application arose first when the VCA stadium became functional. There is nothing in the Application to state that these injuries stood compounded further to actuate the Applicants to initiate the action in the present case as framed."
ii. Thereafter, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 11 has placed reliance on Graminee Environment Development Foundation v. Balaji Infrastructure Ltd. & 17 O.A. No.82/2025(CZ) Rama Shankar Agarwal Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.& Ors.
Ors. [(2017) SCC Online NGT 1098), where-in relevant para nos. 11 to 13 are as follows:-
"11. Section 15 (3) of the NGT Act, 2010 in clear terms requires the Application for restitution of the property damaged to be made within the period of five (5) years from the date on which cause for such relief first arose, and provides for discretion to the Tribunal to condone delay for 'sufficient cause' if the application is filed within further period of sixty (60) days and no further. In the present case, the Applicant avers that the cause of action first arose on 24.2.2015, when the letter was addressed by the Member Secretary, Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) to the Collector, Raigad to take action in respect of the grievance made by the Applicant and yet no action was taken by the authorities.
The Applicant has further revealed in her Application that she has been making several complaints to the Authorities about the said grievance, first such complaint being made on 15.9.2014 to the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Navi Mumbai. Reading of the letter dated 24.2.2015, Annexure "I to the Application (Pg.81) reveals the nature of grievance made by the Applicant. In short, the Applicant was aggrieved by the alleged illegal blasting work, storage of minerals and reclamation by 18 O.A. No.82/2025(CZ) Rama Shankar Agarwal Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.& Ors.
Dighi Port Ltd. Similarly, the grievance made with complaint dated 15.9.2014 is regarding alleged illegal work of reclamation of seashore and filling rocks at village Nanavali and intertidal land encroachment without EC buy Dighi Port Ltd, and Balaji Infrastructure Ltd.
12. In our considered opinion, making of grievance of the kind in the present case by writing a letter cannot be constituted as 'cause of action' but the actual act or its consequence constitutes 'cause of action' in any case. In the present case, cause of action has arisen as a result of blasting work as well as dumping of rocks etc. by Dighi Port Ltd and its holding Company Balaji Infrastructure Ltd in the said land.
13. A perusal of the Application gives some clue as to when such acts of blasting of hills and dumping of material excavated started. The Applicant has pleaded in her Application that Respondent No.1 encroached upon 3km of seashore of village Nanavali and without permission of any Govt. Authority dumped soil and rocks there. It is further pleaded that Respondent No.1 has been doing illegal activities of levelling, blasting, excavation of land, filling of land space with soil, dumping huge rocks and artificial land spaces without any permission; and in spite of such illegalities going on, Respondent 19 O.A. No.82/2025(CZ) Rama Shankar Agarwal Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.& Ors.
Nos. 2 to 7- Govt. Authorities did nothing. The Applicant in her pleadings referred to EC granted in the name of Dighi Port Ltd on 30th September, 2005 for construction of Port at village Dighi, Taluka Shrivardhan, District Raigad and states that she does not challenge or dispute anything about such EC or any work at Dighi Port and her only grievance is that Respondent No.1 has encroached upon the property and extended various kinds of constructions beyond consented area. These facts as pleaded if read in conjunction with the plaint in Regular Civil Suit No.4 of 2009 filed by the Applicant in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shrivardhan, do make sense as to when alleged activity had started. At para-7 of the said plaint, the Applicant has categorically stated that on 26.12.2008 the defendant (therein) i.e. Dighi Port Ltd came at the land adjacent to the house of the Applicant in order to make encroachment and reclaimed the land, and this highhanded activity of Dighi Port Ltd was resisted by the Applicant with objection that they cannot reclaim land by blasting the hills and dumping rocks at the said land. A clear fact emerges that the act of blasting the hill sides, dumping materials illegally and reclamation of land, first started in or about December, 2008. Thus, cause 20 O.A. No.82/2025(CZ) Rama Shankar Agarwal Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.& Ors.
of action for the present Application clearly arose in or about December, 2008."
iii. Based on the above provisions of law, it is vehemently argued by the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 11/Project Proponent that the present application is time barred and needs to be dismissed on that ground alone. iv. During argument, the learned Counsel for the Applicant in Original Application has pointed out that he is relying on para no. 18.25 & 18.26 of the reply affidavit dated 26.10.2021, mentioned at page nos. 981 to 986 of the paper book, which are as follows:-
"18.25. I state that, this Hon'ble Tribunal in the matter of "Forward Foundation, A Charitable Trust and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. (OA No. 222/2014) Judgment dated 7th May, 2015", reported in 2015 SCC Online NGT 5 in dealing with the issue of limitation and cause of action has specifically held as follows-
"24. The expression 'cause of action' as normally understood in civil jurisprudence has to be examined with some distinction, while construing it in relation to the provisions of the NGT Act. Such 'cause of action' should essentially have nexus with the matters relating to environment. It should raise a substantial question of environment relating to the implementation of the statutes specified 21 O.A. No.82/2025(CZ) Rama Shankar Agarwal Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.& Ors.
in Schedule I of the NGT Act. A 'cause of action' might arise during the chain of events, in establishment of a project but would not be construed as a 'cause of action' under the provisions of the Section 14 of the NGT Act, 2010 unless it has a direct nexus to environment or it gives rise to a substantial environmental dispute. For example, acquisition of land simplicitor or issuance of notification under the provisions of the land acquisition laws, would not be an event that would trigger the period of limitation under the provisions of the NGT Act, being cause of action first arose'. A dispute giving rise to a 'cause of action' must essentially be an environmental dispute and should relate to either one or more of the Acts stated in Schedule I to the NGT Act, 2010. If such dispute leading to 'cause of action' is alien to the question of environment or does not raise substantial question relating of environment, it would be incapable of triggering prescribed period of limitation under the NGT Act, 2010. [Ref Liverpool and London S.P. and I Asson. Ltd: v. M.V. Sea Success I and Anr., (2004) 9 SCC 22 O.A. No.82/2025(CZ) Rama Shankar Agarwal Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.& Ors.
512, J. Mehta v. Union of India, 2013 ALL (I) NGT REPORTER (2) Delhi, 106, Kehar Singh v. State of Haryana, 2013 ALL (1) NGT REPORTER (DELHI) 556, Goa Foundation v. Union of India, 2013 ALL (I) NGT REPORTER DELHI 234].
25. In contradistinction to 'cause of action first arose', there could be 'continuing cause of action', 'recurring cause of action or 'successive cause of action'. These diverse connotations with reference to cause of action are not synonymous.
They certainly have a distinct and different meaning in law, 'Cause of action first arose' would refer to a definite point of time when requisite ingredients constituting that 'cause of action' were complete, providing applicant right to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court or the Tribunal. The Right to Sue' or 'right to take action' would be subsequent to an accrual of such right. The concept of continuing wrong which would be the foundation of continuous cause of action has been accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bal Krishna Savalram Pujari & Ors. v. Sh.
23 O.A. No.82/2025(CZ) Rama Shankar Agarwal Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.& Ors.
Dayaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan & Ors., AIR 1959 SC 798.
18.26 Further I state that, the Forward Foundation Judgment was challenged before the FIon'b1e Supreme Court in the matter of Mantri Technoze Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Forward Foundation, Civil Appeal No. 5016/2016 reported in (2019) 18 SCC 494 has specifically held vide judgment dated 5th March, 2019 and has confirmed the said judgment of Forward Foundation and even the Review petition of the same has been dismissed vide order dated 06/08/2019 and has thus become final and binding.
"In fact, in the original application before the Tribunal there was no mention of the provision under which it was being filed. It is well settled principal of law that nonmention of or erroneous mention of the provision of law would not be of any relevance, if the Court had the requisite jurisdiction to pass an order. It would be mere irregularity and would not vitiate the application or the judicial order of the Tribunal"
24
O.A. No.82/2025(CZ) Rama Shankar Agarwal Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.& Ors.
The NGT Act being a beneficial legislation, the power bestowed upon the Tribunal would not be read narrowly. An interpretation which furthers the interests of environment must be given a broader reading. (See Kishsore Lal v. Chairman, Employees' State Insurance Corpn. (2007) 4 SCC 579, para 17). The existence of the Tribunal without its broad restorative powers under Section 15(1)(c) read with Section 20 of the Act, would render it ineffective and toothless, and shall betray the legislative intent in setting up a specialized Tribunal specifically to address environmental concerns. The Tribunal, specially constituted with Judicial Members as well as with Experts in the field of environment, has a legal obligation to provide for preventive and restorative measures in the interest of the environment"
"The Tribunal has also jurisdiction under Section 15(1)(a) of the Act to provide relief and compensation to the victims of pollution and other environmental damage arising under 25 O.A. No.82/2025(CZ) Rama Shankar Agarwal Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.& Ors.
the enactments specified in Schedule I. Further, under Section 15(1)(b) and 15(1)(c) the Tribunal can provide for restitution of property damaged and for restitution of the environment for such area or areas as the Tribunal may think fit. It is noteworthy that Section 15(1)(b) & (c) have not been made relatable to Schedule I enactments of the Act. Rightly so, this grants a glimpse into the wide range of powers that the Tribunal has been cloaked with respect to restoration of the environment."
"Section 15(1)(c) of the Act is an entire island of power and jurisdiction read with Section 20 of the Act. The principles of sustainable development, precautionary principle and polluter pays, propounded by this Court by way of multiple judicial pronouncements, have now been embedded as a bedrock of environmental jurisprudence under the NGT Act. Therefore, wherever the environment and ecology are being compromised and jeopardized, the Tribunal can apply Section 20 for 26 O.A. No.82/2025(CZ) Rama Shankar Agarwal Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.& Ors.
taking restorative measures in the interest of the environment."
20. Submission of the respondent are that the application is not maintainable and beyond time.
21. During the course of hearing and I.A. No. 17/2026 has been filed by the applicant making a choice to imposing environmental compensation on one of the respondents and exempting the other.
22. In other I.A. No. 32/2026 has been filed today to withdraw the application with certain modification for direction of plantation of developing the green belt. State PCB has filed the compliance report with regard to show-cause notice against the respondent.
23. The perusal of records and an application shows - that the applicant has filed this application to blackmail the opposite parties and direct them to fulfil undesirable demands or certain work to be done illegally. The forum of the Tribunal cannot be misutilised for ulterior motive or pressure the opposite parties or to control the court proceedings. Once the application has been filed before the Court or Tribunal, it is left to the Tribunal or Court to decide according to merit.
24. The conduct of the applicant shows that he wants to control the proceedings in his hands and directing the Tribunal to do according to his wishes. This is a pure blackmailing the system which cannot be tolerated at all. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed with cost of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees Fifty Thousand) on the applicant Mr. Rama Sankar Agrawal. The applicant is directed to deposit the amount to the environmental fund/State PCB and the State PCB has to submit the compliance report. In case of failure to deposit the amount within three months, the Member Secretary, State Pollution Control Board, Rajasthan 27 O.A. No.82/2025(CZ) Rama Shankar Agarwal Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.& Ors. have to realise the amount according to rules and to deposit it in the environmental fund and to utilize for the environmental purposes.
25. With these observations, the Original Application No. 82/2025 alongwith all I.As. stand dismissed. A copy of the application be forwarded to Member Secretary, State Pollution Control Board, Rajasthan and the Collector, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
Sheo Kumar Singh, JM Sudhir Kumar Chaturvedi, EM 22nd January, 2026 OA No.82/2025(CZ) PN 28 O.A. No.82/2025(CZ) Rama Shankar Agarwal Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.& Ors.