National Green Tribunal
Hemraj Meena vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 May, 2026
Item No.08
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
CENTRAL ZONE BENCH, BHOPAL
(THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)
Original Application No.36/2025(CZ)
(I.A. No.45/2025)
Hemraj Meena Applicant(s)
Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of Hearing: 06.05.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. SUDHIR KUMAR CHATURVEDI, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant (s): Mr. Puram Das Gupta, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rohit Sharma, Adv. for R-4 and
State of Rajasthan
Mr. Gigi George, Adv. for CGWA
Mr. Jitendra Mitrucka and Mr. Nishant Goel,
Adv. for R-7
ORDER
1. The grievances of the applicant are illegal construction activity within the notified Eco-Sensitive Zone of Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary at Aravalli ranges in Amber hills, Jaipur district of Rajasthan. The construction is happening in the village Harwar which is listed in the list of villages coming under Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary's Eco-
Sensitive Zone. The construction activity therefore is in violation of the ESZ Notification dated 08.03.2019 issued for Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary by MoEF&CC under Section 3 of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Rule 5 of Environment Protection Rules. The act of construction in Eco-Sensitive Zone is in violation of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and orders and directions passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal and Hon'ble Supreme Court in several matters and further that the Respondent No.7 is undertaking large scale construction 1 O.A. No.36/2025(CZ) Hemraj Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
activity just about 95 metre from Wildlife Sanctuary and within the Eco-Sensitive Zone in Khasra No. 127, 128, 128/1, 129, 130, 131, 131/2, 72/1021, 72/971, 72/972 recorded as type Barani and Khasra No. 1028 and 481 recorded as type Resort and Khasra No. 131/1 as typed Farmhouse and Khasra No. 480 as type Banjar and Khasra No. 478 as type Jaw of village Harwar, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The members of the Joint Committee visited the site and submitted the report as follows:-
"Observations During field visit and on perusal of records, it was observed that: -
(i) Matter is related to the unit M/s Grand Hayatt promoted by M/s Gurnani Hotels Private Limited which is under construction at Khasra No. 72/971, 72/972, 72/1021, 127, 128, 128/1, 128/1023, 129, 130, 131, 131/2, 478, 480, 481, village- Harwar, Tehsil-Amer, District- Jaipur, which was visited by the joint committee members.
(ii) As per the categorization of the State Board, Hotels (3 Star & Above) and/or Hotels having 100 rooms and above are covered under Red category. The unit has submitted application dated 03.02.2023 for obtaining Consent to Establish under the provisions of the Water Act, 1974 and the Air Act, 1981, which was granted vide State Board's letter dated 12.05.2023 for hotel activity for 409 rooms.
(iii) The total built up area of the unit is more than 20,000 Square Meter (As per the approved map total built up area is 78,810.48 Square Meter) and as per the provisions of the EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006 the unit requires to obtain Environmental Clearance.
The unit has obtained Environmental Clearance under the provisions of the EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006 vide SEIAA letter dated 27.05.2022 for Gross Bilt up Area 78,810.48 Square meter.
(iv) During the committee visit, the unit was found under construction phase.
(v) It was reported by the representative of Forest Department that unit's premises falls outside the forest boundaries and also outside the Nahargarh Wild Life Sanctuary notified on 22.09.1980 and 2 O.A. No.36/2025(CZ) Hemraj Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
outside the ECO Sensitive Zone notified on 18.03.2019 of the Nahargarh Wild Life Sanctuary. As per the Distance certificate issued by DFO, Wildlife (Zoo), dated 14.02.2022, distance of the unit from boundary of Nahargarh Wild Life Sanctuary is 4.0 Km (approx.) and from Eco sensitive Zone of the Nahargarh Wild Life Sanctuary is 400 meters (approx.)
(vi) It is also noteworthy that, the work related to defining the boundary of Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary is under review by the State Forest Department as the matter is sub judicial in E.Α. No. 06/2024 in O.A. No. 97/2022, Kamal Tiwari V/s Union of India & Ors pending before Hon'ble NGT, CENTRAL ZONAL BENCH, BHOPAL.
(vii) In this regard, as per the representative of Forest Department, meetings were convened under the chairmanship of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Chief Wild Life Warden, Rajasthan, Jaipur on 07.01.2025, 21.01.2025 and 26.03.2025.
(viii) As the unit falls outside the ECO Sensitive Zone notified on 18.03.2019 of the Nahargarh Wild Life Sanctuary, therefore, does not require to obtain Wild Life clearance from NBWL."
3. Submissions of the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.7 are that Gurnani Hotels Private Limited Jaipur is developing a hotel project titled "Grand Hyatt Jaipur" over the land comprising Khasra Nos.
72/971 72/972, 72/1021, 127, 128, 128/1, 128/1023, 129, 130, 131, 131/2,478, 490, and 481 in Village Harwar, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. These khasra numbers are also mentioned in the Applicant's pleading. The project is located at a substantial distance from the boundary of Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary and the applicable limits of its ESZ and the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (RSPCB) has granted a valid and subsisting Consent to Establish for the project under the provisions of Section 25/26 of the Water Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The said consent, bearing Order No. 2023-2024/HBC/2717 and File No. F(Tech)/JAIPUR(Amber)/7277(1)/2023-2024/898-900 and Unit ID 124430 was issued on 12.05.2023 and is valid from 28.04.2023 to 3 O.A. No.36/2025(CZ) Hemraj Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
31.03.2028 or the commencement of operation, whichever is earlier.
The consent has been granted specifically for hotel activities with 409 rooms, based on detailed examination of the site and submitted documents, and explicitly covers the above-referred khasra numbers. It is stated that prior to the commencement of any development activity, it obtained a Distance Certificate no. F survey/2021-22/866 dated 14.02.2022 from the Office of the Deputy Conservator of Forests (Wildlife), Zoo, Jaipur. As per the said certificate, which is based on GPS and KML mapping aligned with the ESZ Notification dated 08.03.2019, the location of the project is approximately 4.00 kilometers from the boundary of Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary and approximately 0.400 kilometers from the outer boundary of the Eco-Sensitive Zone of the said sanctuary. Thus, the project is neither within the sanctuary nor within any prohibited zone. It lies in the regulated buffer zone of the ESZ, where regulated activities such as hotel construction are permitted, subject to prior approvals and compliance which the answering respondent has ensured.
4. It is further argued that the Respondent has been granted Environmental Clearance (EC) dated 30.05.2022 by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Rajasthan under the provisions of the EIA Notification, 2006. The EC bears Identification No. EC22B038RJ135889 and File No. 620. The project has been classified as a Category B2 Building and Construction Project (Schedule 8(a)), confirm that it falls under projects of relatively lower environmental impact. The clearance has been granted after thorough examination of the project's environmental viability, impact assessment parameters, and its compatibility with the applicable norms. That no activity prohibited under the ESZ Notification dated 08.03.2019 is 4 O.A. No.36/2025(CZ) Hemraj Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
being undertaken at the site. The said notification categorizes zones within the ESZ for different activities, many of which including construction of hotels and resorts are permissible with prior environmental clearance and subject to due process, which has been duly environmental regulations. followed. There is neither any unauthorized land use nor any violation of environmental regulations.
5. It is further contended that the officially certified distance from the sanctuary boundary is approximately 4.00 km, as per the Government-
issued distance certificate. This discrepancy suggests that the Applicant may have relied on inaccurate or unofficial mapping without reference to official GIS data and Government demarcation, which should not be the basis for such serious allegations.
6. Submission of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/State Pollution Control Board are that the unit has obtained the valid consent to operate. Necessary permission has been granted by the State PCB.
7. Submissions of the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.7 are that as per Annexure-1, the eastern boundary of the sanctuary is along the National Highway and reserve forest block. The relevant part of the ESZ Notification is reproduced for reference:-
"Eastern boundary: The extent of Eco-Sensitive Zone from Global Position System point number 270 to 280 will be Reserve forest block boundary, from Global Position System point number 280 to 281 will be along National Highway No. 8(Now NH-11-C), from Global Position System point number 281 to 295 will be 100 meters to 500 meters from sanctuary boundary. Similarly, the boundary along NH 8(Now 11 C) from Global Position System point 295 to 297 will be Eco Sensitive Zone. Reserve forest block boundary from GPS point number 297 to 320 will be Eco-Sensitive Zone limit. Sanctuary boundary from Global Position System point number 320 to 325 will be Eco Sensitive Zone limit including Rajamal ka talab. The extent of Eco Sensitive Zone from Global Position System point number 297 to 325 will be from 100 meters to 2.0 kilometers."5
O.A. No.36/2025(CZ) Hemraj Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
8. Further that as per the above-mentioned ESZ Notification, since village Harwar is mentioned in the list of villages in the eco-sensitive zone of Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary, hence, the hotel under construction cannot be considered to be outside the Eco-Sensitive Zone.
9. Learned Counsel for the Applicant has filed the response/objections against the Joint Committee Report but no substantial ground has been filed to contradict the same.
10. Submissions of the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3 are that the site of the hotel is situated in proximity of Global Positioning System points 266, 267 and 268 at distance of approximately 400 meter, which falls beyond the notified Eco-sensitive zone of Nahargarh Wildlife sanctuary limits and further that only a part of village Harwar included in the Eco-Sensitive Zone of Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary Notification, 2019, and the inclusion of a village name in Annexure-IV of the Notification does not imply that the entire geographical extent of that village falls within the Eco-Sensitive Zone of Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary, Jaipur. Further as per the Distance certificate issued by Deputy Conservator of forest, Wildlife (Zoo), dated 14.02.2022, distance of the alleged site from Boundary of Nahargarh Wild life Sanctuary is 4.0 Km (approx.) and from Eco sensitive Zone of the Nahargarh Wild Life Sanctuary is 400 meters (approx.). Accordingly, from both the notification description and map verification (Annexure R3/2), it is evident that the alleged site lies outside the limits of Eco-sensitive zone of Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary Jaipur and is private land on which the of provisions of the Eco-sensitive zone of Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary Jaipur Notification dated 08.03.2019 are not applicable. The allegation of any illegal construction activity within the Eco-Sensitive Zone is wholly unfounded and refuted.
6O.A. No.36/2025(CZ) Hemraj Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
11. The perusal of the report reveals that the unit is outside the forest area and pre-existing before the notification and there are valid environmental clearances and there are no violations.
12. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has relied on [2026.RJ-JP.16915] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5863/2024 where the Hon'ble High Court for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur has observed the constructions, regulations and law on the point of completion certificate and existing units within the ESZ area as follows:
"37. It is observed that vide approval order dated 28.02.2023, a Completion Certificate was issued in favour of the Petitioner by the competent authority, certifying that the construction of the building was in conformity with the applicable laws and regulations of the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA). The said certificate was granted without imposition of any penalty or requirement of further clarification, and upon due compliance with the Building Regulations, 2020, as well as all requisite permissions, as reflected in affidavits dated 21.02.2024 (Annexures-R/7 and R/8). This Court further notes that, as per Annexure-RR/5, being the Agenda of the 78th Meeting of the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife, the Warden/competent authority of the Standing Committee had duly taken into consideration the recommendations of the State Board for Wildlife. It is borne out that in the 14th Meeting of the State Board for Wildlife held in the year 2023, the case of the petitioner was specifically examined, and the Chief Wildlife Warden, upon due consideration, recorded a finding that no violation was made out. The applicability of the Notifications dated 14.09.2006 and 08.03.2019, as well as the relevant judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, were also duly taken into account while making such recommendation. Subsequently, a Circular dated 26.09.2023 (Annexure-RR/6) was issued by the Joint Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Department of Forest, Environment & Climate Change, wherein guidelines were laid down for classification of units as "existing" or "new" in terms of the Notifications of the years 2006 and 2019. The said Circular further took into consideration the guidelines issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, particularly with respect to eco-sensitive zones and categorization of industrial and commercial activities therein, 7 O.A. No.36/2025(CZ) Hemraj Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
thereby providing clarity on the regulatory framework governing such projects.
38. This Court further takes note of the Office Memorandum dated 17.05.2022 (Annexure-19), issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, concerning the grant of clearances for projects situated in and around eco-sensitive zones. The said Office Memorandum elucidates the requirement of obtaining permissions from various authorities, including environmental, forest, and the National Board for Wildlife, depending upon the nature, location, and classification of the project. The same delineates, in a tabulated form, the categories of projects and the corresponding approvals required, thereby bringing greater clarity and uniformity in the application of the statutory framework. The relevant table is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
" Prescribed w.r.t. applicability of EC, FC, and WC in ESZ/ESA and other ecologically significant areas outside PA:8
O.A. No.36/2025(CZ) Hemraj Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.9
O.A. No.36/2025(CZ) Hemraj Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
39. It is further observed that the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, vide Notification dated 14.11.2006 issued under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, prescribed that any project or activity situated in and around forest or sanctuary areas is required to be appraised by the Environmental Impact Assessment Authority with respect to its environmental impact, in consonance with the National Environmental Policy. The said Notification, inter alia, provided that building construction projects having a built-up area exceeding 20,000 square meters shall be governed by specified terms and conditions and would mandatorily require environmental appraisal and clearance. Subsequently, vide Notification dated 08.03.2019 (Annexure-10), a final notification was issued whereby, for the first time, the concept of EcoSensitive Zone (ESZ) was delineated in respect of the boundary of the NWLS, specifying the extent thereof. The said Notification further mandated preparation of a Zonal Master Plan for the EcoSensitive Zone within a period of two years from the date of its publication, in consultation with local stakeholders and with the involvement of as many as thirteen different departments of the State Government. However, a plain reading of the said Notification makes it abundantly clear that "existing units" were specifically excluded from the rigours of the Notification, inasmuch as the restrictions and regulatory measures introduced therein were not intended to operate retrospectively so as to affect already approved and existing land use and activities. The relevant provisions of the said Notification are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
"MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 8th March, 2019 NOW THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (1) and clauses (v) and (xiv) of sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986) (hereafter in this modification referred to as the Environment Act) read with sub-rule (3) of rule 5 of the Environment(Protection) Rules, 1986 the Central Government hereby notifies an area to an extent of 0( zero) to 13 kilometers around the boundary of Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary, in Jaipur district of Rajasthan as Eco-Sensitive Zone 10 O.A. No.36/2025(CZ) Hemraj Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(hereafter in this notification referred to as the Eco-Sensitive Zone) detail of which are as under namely:
1. Extent and boundaries of Eco-Sensitive Zone. - (1) The Eco-
Sensitive Zone shall be to an extent of 0(zero) to 13 kilometers around the boundary of Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary and the area of EcoSensitive Zone is 79.356 square kilometers. Zero extent is towards the sides with heavy urbanization. (2) xxxxx (3) xxxxx (4) xxxxx (5) xxxxx
2. Zonal Master Plan for Eco-Sensitive Zone.-
(1) The State Government shall, for the purpose of the EcoSensitive Zone prepare a Zonal Master Plan within a period of two years from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette, in consultation with local people and adhering to the stipulations given in this notification for approval of the Competent authority of State.
(2) The Zonal Master Plan for the Eco-Sensitive Zone shall be prepared by the State Government in such manner as is specified in this notification and also in consonance with the relevant Central and State laws and the guidelines issued by the Central Government, if any. (3) The Zonal Master Plan shall be prepared in consultation with the following Departments of the State Government, for integrating the ecological and environmental considerations into the said plan:-
(i) Environment,
(ii) Forest,
(iii) Urban Development,
(iv) Tourism,
(v) Revenue,
(vi) Agriculture,
(vii) Rural Development,
(viii) Irrigation and Flood Control,
(ix) Municipal, (x) Panchayati Raj,
(xi) Public Works Department, and
(xii) Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board.11
O.A. No.36/2025(CZ) Hemraj Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(4) The Zonal Master Plan shall not impose any restriction on the approved existing land use, infrastructure and activities unless so specified in this notification and the Zonal Master Plan shall factor in improvement of all infrastructure and activities to be more efficient and eco-friendly.
(5) xxxxx (6) xxxxx (7) xxxxx (8) The Zonal Master Plan shall be co-terminus with the Regional Development Plan.
E. Tourism or Eco-Tourism- (a) All new eco-tourism activities or expansion of existing tourism activities within the Zone shall be as per the Tourism Master Plan for the Eco-Sensitive Zone.
(b) The Eco-Tourism Master Plan shall be prepared by the State Department of Tourism in the consultation with State Departments of Environment and Forests.
(c) The Tourism Master Plan shall form a component of the Zonal Master Plan.
(d) The activities of eco-tourism shall be regulated as under namely :-
(i) new construction of hotels and resorts shall not be allowed within one kilometer from the boundary of the Wildlife Sancturary or upto the extent of the EcoSensitive Zone whichever is nearer :
Provided that beyond the distance of one kilometer from the boundary of the Wildlife Sanctuary till the extent of the Eco- Sensitive Zone, the establishment of new hotels and resorts shall be allowed only in pre-defined and designated areas for eco-tourism facilities as per Tourism Master Plan;
(ii) all new tourism activities or expansion of existing tourism activities within the Eco-Sensitive Zone shall be in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Central Government in the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and the eco-tourism guidelines issued by National Tiger Conversation Authority(as amended from time to time) with emphasis on eco-
Tourism;
12O.A. No.36/2025(CZ) Hemraj Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(iii) until the Zonal Master Plan is approved, development for tourism and expansion of existing tourism activities shall be permitted by the concerned regulatory authorities based on the actual site specific scrutiny and recommendation of the Monitoring Committee and no new hotel, resort or commercial establishment construction shall be permitted within Eco- Sensitive Zone area"
4. List of activities prohibited or to be regulated within Eco- Sensitive Zone.- All activities in the Eco-Sensitive Zone shall be governed by the provisions of the Environment Act and the rules made there under including the Coastal Regulation Zone, 2011 and the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 and other applicable laws including the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (69 of 1980), the Indian Forest Act, 1972, (53 of 1972), and amendments made thereto and be regulated in the manner specified in the Table below, namely:-13
O.A. No.36/2025(CZ) Hemraj Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
40. In pursuance of the Notification dated 08.03.2019, the Zonal Master Plan for the Eco-Sensitive Zone of Nahargarh was duly prepared and issued by the Respondent-JDA in coordination and consultation with the Forest Department and in consultation with other concerned departments. The said Zonal Master Plan, in consonance with the aforesaid Notification, specifically delineates, under Para 10.4, the classification and treatment of "existing activities/uses" and "new hotel" projects, by providing distinct definitions aligned with tourism-related activities, thereby adopting a balanced and regulated approach. The relevant extract thereof is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
"10.4 Existing Activity/Use ESZ Notification dated 08-03-
2019 prescribed regulations regarding new hotel, resort, commercial establishments, etc. This leads to the requirement of defining what is "existing". For purpose of ZMP for the ESZ, hotels, resorts, commercial establishments, etc. shall be considered as existing if they have any of the following issued prior to 08-03-2019 ESZ Notification of Nahargarh :
1. Electricity connection for non-agricultural use.
2. Approval by Tourism Department as tourism unit.14
O.A. No.36/2025(CZ) Hemraj Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
3. Conversation order/Patta for non-agricultural use.
4. Building Plan approval.
5. Order regarding change in landuse.
6. Proof of deposition of tax as hotel, resort, commercial establishments, etc.
7. CTE/CTO /Environment Clearance.
Additionally, all the duly approved uses existing prior to issue of Nahargarh ESZ Notification shall be honored. Further process will be done in conformity with the development controls & zoning regulation as per Zonal Master Plan of ESZ."
41.This Court further observed that in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 08.08.2019 (Annexure-RR/2) issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (IA Division), a detailed procedure was prescribed for consideration of developmental projects situated within a radius of 10 kms. from National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries, while seeking Environmental Clearance under the provisions of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006. It is also discerned therefrom that prior approval of the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife is required in respect of developmental projects falling within the aforesaid 10 Kms radius of the Eco-Sensitive Zone. The relevant extract of the said Office Memorandum dated 08.08.2019 is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
"4. In light of the aforesaid Orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the issues related to the prior clearance from SCNBWL for the notified ESZs and the remaining areas have been examined in detail, in this regard, it has been decided by the Competent Authority in the Ministry to adopt a following procedure for consideration of developmental projects located within 10 km of National Park/Wildlife Sanctuary seeking environmental clearance under the provisions of the EIA Notification in supersession of the ealier O.M. s dated 27.2.2007 and 2.12.2009:15
O.A. No.36/2025(CZ) Hemraj Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
i. Proposals involving developmental activity/project located within by the notified Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZ) shall be regulated and governed by the concerned ESZ notification. However, for the developmental Schedule of the EIA notification. However, for the developmental project/activity located within the notified ESZ and covered under the schedule of the EIA Notification 2006, prior clearance from Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (SCNBWL) is mandatory. In such cases, the project proponent shall submit the application simultaneously for grant of Terms of Reference as wells as wildlife clearance.
ii. Proposals involving developmental activity/ project located outside the stipulated boundary limit of notified ESZ and located within 10 km of National Park/Wildlife Sanctuary, prior clearance from Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (SCNBWL) may not be applicable. However, such proposals from environmental angle including impact of developmental activity/project on the wildlife habitat, if any, would be examined by the sector specific Expert Appraisal Committee and appropriate conversation measures in the form of recommendations shall be made. These recommendations shall be explicity mentioned in the environmental clearance letter and shall be ensured by the member secretary concerned.
iii. Proposals involving developmental activity/project located within 10 km of National Park/Wildlife Sanctuary wherein final ESZ notification is not notified (or) ESZ notification is in draft stage, prior clearance from Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (SCBNWL) is mandatory. In such cases, the project proponent shall submit the application simultaneously for grant of Terms, of Reference/ environmental clearance as well as wildlife clearance.
iv. Proposals involving mining of minerals within the ESZ (or) one kilometer from the boundaries of National Parks and 16 O.A. No.36/2025(CZ) Hemraj Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Sanctuaries whichever is higher is prohibited in accordance with the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 4.08.2006 in the matter of T.N. Godavarman Thirmulpad Vs. UOI in W.P. (C) No. 202 of 1995 and dated 21.4.2014 in the matter of Goa Foundation Vs. UOI in W.P. (C) No. 435 of 2012.
42. Thus upon a bare perusal of the aforesaid Office Memorandum, it is opined that the projects situated within the Eco-Sensitive Zones are made subject to regulatory control and mandatorily require prior clearance from the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (SCNBWL). However, it is equally evident from Clause (ii) thereof that in cases where a project is located outside the demarcated boundaries of the notified EcoSensitive Zone, though within a radial distance of 10 Kms. from a National Park or Wildlife Sanctuary, the requirement of obtaining prior clearance from the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife shall not be applicable.
43. Upon a comprehensive consideration of the aforesaid facts, the material placed on record, and in light of the issues enumerated in paragraph no. 31 of this judgment for adjudication, this Court records its findings as under: 43.1 That it is an admitted and undisputed position that the Petitioner commenced the process of obtaining requisite statutory permissions for establishment of a Star Category Hotel as early as the year 1995, and has since acted in furtherance thereof in a continuous and bona fide manner. In terms of the Notification dated 14.11.2006, read conjointly with the Office Memorandum dated 08.08.2019, it is manifest that developmental projects situated outside the demarcated boundaries of a notified EcoSensitive Zone, albeit within a radius of 10 kilometers from a National Park or Wildlife Sanctuary, do not attract the requirement of prior clearance from the SCNBWL. Consequently, the said stipulation is not applicable to the case of the present Petitioner.17
O.A. No.36/2025(CZ) Hemraj Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
43.2. That the Notification dated 08.03.2019 distinctly classifies activities into "prohibited", "regulated", and "promotional" categories. The hotel project of the petitioner, by its very nature and in view of the approvals granted, falls within the ambit of "regulated activity". The said Notification further mandates preparation of a Zonal Master Plan for Eco-
Sensitive Zones, to be formulated with the approval of the competent State authority in consultation with as many as thirteen concerned departments, including but not limited to the Environment, Forest, Tourism, and Local Bodies Departments. The object of such a coordinated framework is to ensure infrastructural development and ecological balance, without disturbing or imposing restrictions upon already approved and existing land-use and infrastructural developments. The Zonal Master Plan is further intended to operate in harmony with the Regional/Tourism Development Plans, thereby ensuring a balanced approach towards eco- tourism and sustainable development.
43.3 That as per the Notification dated 08.03.2019, only new constructions of hotels and resorts located within a distance of 1 Km from the boundary of a Wildlife Sanctuary are expressly prohibited. The Zonal Master Plan, issued subsequently in the year 2023, in terms of Para 10.4, provides a categorical definition of "existing units". As per the said provision, any hotel or resort which had obtained requisite approvals prior to the issuance of the Notification dated 08.03.2019 is to be treated as an "existing unit". In the present case, the Petitioner had already secured multiple statutory approvals, including those relating to electricity, tourism, land use conversion, building plan sanction, and environmental clearance, prior to the cut-off date. Therefore, the Petitioner squarely falls within the definition of an "existing unit", and its vested rights cannot be divested or impaired, in consonance with the settled principles of certainty, legitimate expectation, and continuity in administrative action.
18O.A. No.36/2025(CZ) Hemraj Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
43.4 That qua the contention advanced by the learned Additional Solicitor General, Mr. Bharat Vyas, with respect to the Environmental Clearance dated 23.06.2007 being subject to prior approval of the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife, is concerned, this Court finds that a holistic reading of the said clearance, particularly Para 10 thereof, makes it evident that such requirement is conditional and would arise only where "the same is otherwise applicable in law". In view of Para 10.4 of the Notification dated 08.03.2019, read with the Office Memorandum dated 08.08.2019, the Petitioner qualifies as an "existing unit", situated outside the Eco-Sensitive Zone, though within 10 Kms of the sanctuary boundary. Hence, the requirement of obtaining prior clearance from the SCNBWL does not arise in the facts of the present case. Consequently, the permissions and approvals granted by the competent authorities in favour of the Petitioner cannot be held to be void or without jurisdiction, but rather stand validly issued in accordance with law.
43.5 That from the record it is noted that the State Forest Authority, upon due inspection and verification of the project site, recommended the case of the Petitioner to the competent Screening Committee. In light of the Notification dated 08.03.2019 and the provisions of the Zonal Master Plan, such recommendation, having been made upon due application of mind and in accordance with the prescribed procedure, ought to have been duly considered and approved by the concerned authorities.
43.6 This Court further observes that, upon a bare perusal of Para 78.3.23 of the impugned findings recorded by the Standing Committee, it becomes evident that the Standing Committee, while dealing with more than 33 fresh proposals across four different agenda items, failed to undertake a proper and casespecific analysis of the material facts pertaining to the Petitioner's project. It is discernible that the proposal placed before the Standing Committee was in 19 O.A. No.36/2025(CZ) Hemraj Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
relation to the construction of a hotel in proximity to the Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary. However, the record unequivocally reflects that the competent State Wildlife Authority had after due consideration and inspection, positively recommended the Petitioner's proposal. Despite the same, the Standing Committee appears to have proceeded without adequately appreciating the factual matrix and the favourable recommendation of the State authorities, thereby rendering its consideration perfunctory and lacking in due application of mind. The relevant extract from the impugned findings made by the Standing Committee is reproduced hereinbelow:
"78.3.23. Proposal for construction of Kanha Hotels and Spa Pvt. Ltd. Over an area of 0.0845 ha at Khasra No. 54,55 village Chimanpura Tehsil Amer Dist Jaipur, Rajasthan 95 mts from the boundary of Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary.
FP/RJ/Others/4553/2019 The Standing Committee was informed that the proposal is for construction of Kanha Hotels and Spa Pvt. Ltd. Over an area of 0.0845 ha at Khasra No. 54,55 and 56 village Chimanpura Tehsil Amer Dist Jaipur, Rajasthan 95 mts from the boundary of Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary. The proposal has been recommended by Chief Wild Life Warden, the State Board for Wild Life and the State Government.
The ESZ of the Nahargarh Sanctuary has been finally notified and as per the notification, no new commercial hotels and resorts shall be permitted within one kilometer of the boundary of the protected area upto the extent of Ecosensitive zone, whichever is nearer, except for small temporary structures for Eco- tourism activities and new commercial construction of any kind shall not be permitted within one kilometer from the boundary of the protected area or upto extent of the Ecosensitive Zone whichever is nearer.20
O.A. No.36/2025(CZ) Hemraj Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Decision Taken: After discussion, the Standing Committee decided not to recommend the project proposal."
43.7 In light of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the Standing Committee has committed a manifest error in considering the proposal, as stated above, in an ex-parte manner because the petitioner's case was of an "existing unit", which was already operational. The specific words used by the Standing Committee, like, "proposal for construction", "new hotel", "shall be permitted in eco- sensitive zone" signifies the facts that they were under the impression that proposal was for setting-up of a new hotel; howsoever, as per the records and after attaining different permissions, inter alia, the JDA Completion Certificate, zonal master plan and the fact that the construction of the petitioner's unit was already completed, way back, the said unit qualifies as an "existing unit" and is therefore, not required to have any permission from the Standing Committee or Wild Life Board. The fact could have been otherwise if opportunity of hearing would have been granted to the petitioner. The Standing Committee has committed a manifest error in law as well as on facts by erroneously classifying the Petitioner's project as a "new commercial hotel", instead of recognizing it as an "existing unit". It has further drawn an incorrect inference that, as on 22.12.2024, the Petitioner was required to obtain permission for construction as a "new unit". Such a conclusion is ex facie contrary to the statutory framework, inasmuch as, in terms of Para 10.4 of the Notification dated 08.03.2019 read with the Zonal Master Plan, the Petitioner squarely qualifies as an "existing unit", and therefore, no prior approval of the Standing Committee was required.
44. Having addressed the issues in light of the detailed factual matrix and the attendant intricacies of the matter at hand, this Court now deems it apposite to draw guidance from the authoritative pronouncements rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as follows:
21O.A. No.36/2025(CZ) Hemraj Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
44.1 It is a settled proposition of law that any administrative decision, particularly one which departs from or rejects a recommendation duly accorded by competent State Authorities, must adhere to the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and due process, which are the foundational tenets of the rule of law. Any decision rendered in contravention of such principles cannot be said to be immune from judicial review. In the present case, this Court finds that there is an apparent failure of due application of mind on the part of the Standing Committee while recording the impugned findings, thereby rendering the decision vulnerable to interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. In support of the said stance, reliance can be placed upon the ratio encapsulated in Syed Yakoob (supra) the relevant extract of which is reproduced hereinbelow:
"8. It is, of course, not easy to define or adequately describe what an error of law apparent on the face of the record means. What can be corrected by a writ has to be an error of law; hut it must be such an error of law as can be regarded as one which is apparent on the face of the record. Where it is manifest or clear that the conclusion of law recorded by an inferior Court or Tribunal is based on an obvious misinterpretation of the relevant statutory provision, or sometimes in ignorance of it, or may be, even in disregard of it, or is expressly founded on reasons which are wrong in law, the said conclusion can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In all these cases, the impugned conclusion should be so plainly inconsistent with the relevant statutory provision that no difficulty is experienced by the High Court in holding that the said error of law is apparent on the face of the record. It may also be that in some cases, the impugned error of law may not be obvious or patent on the face of the record as such as the Court may need an argument to discover the said error; but there can be no doubt that what can be corrected by a writ of certiorari is an 22 O.A. No.36/2025(CZ) Hemraj Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
error of law and the said error must, on the whole, be of such a character as would satisfy the test that it is an error of law apparent on the face of the record. If a statutory provision is reasonably capable of two constructions and one construction has been adopted by the inferior Court or Tribunal, its conclusion may not necessarily or always be open to correction by a writ of certiorari. In our opinion, it is neither possible nor desirable to attempt either to define or to describe adequately all cases of errors which can be appropriately described as errors of law apparent on the face of the record. Whether or not an impugned error is an error of law and an error of law which is apparent on the face of the record, must always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and upon the nature and scope of the legal provision which is alleged to have been misconstrued or contravened."
44.2 Further, reliance can be placed upon the ratio enunciated in CCT (supra), relevant extract from which is reproduced hereinbelow:
"14. The principle of natural justice has twin ingredients; firstly, the person who is likely to be adversely affected by the action of the authorities should be given notice to show cause thereof and granted an opportunity of hearing and secondly, the orders so passed by the authorities should give reason for arriving at any conclusion showing proper application of mind. Violation of either of them could in the given facts and circumstances of the case, vitiate the order itself. Such rule being applicable to the administrative authorities certainty requires that the judgment of the Court should meet with this requirement with higher degree of satisfaction. The order of an administrative authority may not provide reasons like a judgment but the order must be supported by the reasons of rationality. The distinction between passing of an order by an administrative or quasi-judicial authority has practically extinguished and both are required to pass reasoned orders."23
O.A. No.36/2025(CZ) Hemraj Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
PARTING OBSERVATIONS, FINAL DETERMINATION, AND OPERATIVE DIRECTIVES:
45. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is persuaded to allow the present writ petition for the following, amongst other, compelling reasons emerging from the record, as that the Petitioner has, since the year 1995, acted bona fide and in a continuous manner, obtaining all requisite statutory approvals from the competent authorities for establishment and operation of the hotel project, including land conversion, tourism approvals, building plan sanction, environmental clearance, and consents from pollution control and fire authorities; that the project in question stands duly completed, with construction having been finalized, followed by issuance of completion certificate and all operational permissions, thereby conferring upon the Petitioner a vested and crystallized right in respect of the project; that in terms of the Notification dated 08.03.2019 read with the Zonal Master Plan (Para 10.4), the Petitioner's project unequivocally qualifies as an "existing unit", having secured requisite approvals prior to the cut-off date, and therefore is not subject to the rigours applicable to new constructions; that the Memorandum dated 08.08.2019 clearly stipulates that projects situated outside the notified Eco-Sensitive Zone, though within a radius of 10 Kms, do not require prior approval of the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife, thereby rendering the objection raised in the impugned findings unsustainable; that the competent State Wildlife Authorities, after due inspection and verification, have positively recommended the Petitioner's project, which recommendation has not been accorded due consideration by the Standing Committee; that the Standing Committee has proceeded on an erroneous factual and legal premise by misclassifying the Petitioner's project as a "new unit", and has failed to appreciate the applicable statutory framework, thereby vitiating its decision on account of non-application of mind; that the impugned findings have been rendered in violation of the principles of natural justice, particularly audi alteram partem, as no effective opportunity of hearing was afforded to the Petitioner; that the decision-making process adopted by the Standing Committee is arbitrary, suffers from procedural impropriety, and is contrary to 24 O.A. No.36/2025(CZ) Hemraj Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
the settled principles of administrative law, thereby attracting the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
13. Since the unit is operated outside the forest area as pre-existing unit and there are valid environmental clearances and consent condition from the Competent Authority, thus, no violation has been found.
Thus, no further action is required by this Tribunal and another question has been raised with regard to the identification, measurement, demarcation, protection, mutation or removal of the encroachment but these are the subject-matter of the Revenue Courts or the Competent Forest Department to identify and demarcate it and the High Level Committee, has been constituted to do it and the matter is pending before Hon'ble the High Court.
14. In State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Raghu Ramakrishna Raju Kanumuru decided on 01st of June, 2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when the matter has been taken by the Higher Court/Constitutional Court, then in that case precedence of Constitutional Courts over the statutory Tribunals like - NGT, in the matter of territorial jurisdiction prevails. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:-
"i. Priya Gupta v. Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (2013) 11 SCC 404: This case underscored that government departments are not exempt from complying with court orders. It emphasized that orders from higher courts hold paramount authority, and lower tribunals must adhere to them to maintain legal coherence and respect for the judiciary.
ii. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1995) 1 SCC 400: A Constitutional Bench judgment that established the hierarchy and jurisdictional boundaries between different judicial bodies, reinforcing that statutory tribunals like the NGT are subordinate to High Courts within their territorial jurisdiction. East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs AIR 1962 SC 1893: This case highlighted the necessity for administrative bodies to follow higher 25 O.A. No.36/2025(CZ) Hemraj Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
court directives to ensure consistency and predictability in judicial decisions. Official Liquidator v. Dayanand (2008) 10 SCC 1:
Reiterated the indispensability of obeying higher court orders to preserve the integrity and functionality of the judicial system. These precedents collectively reinforced the principle that higher courts' orders supersede those of statutory tribunals, ensuring a unified legal framework.
Jurisdictional Hierarchy: The High Court holds territorial jurisdiction, making its orders binding over any subordinate tribunal operating within the same jurisdiction, such as the NGT.
Conflict of Orders: When contradictory orders are issued by the High Court and NGT on the same matter, the higher court's directive takes precedence to prevent legal ambiguity.
Constitutional Authority: Referencing Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the Court emphasized that the law declared by a higher court is binding on all lower courts and -tribunals. Administrative Sanity: Maintaining a clear hierarchy ensures Administrative Sanity: Maintaining a clear hierarchy ensures predictable and consistent application of the law, which is essential for administrative efficiency and public trust in the legal system.
By applying these principles, the Supreme Court concluded that the NGT had erred in continuing proceedings that conflicted with the High Court's jurisdiction and order."
15. In view of the above observations, the matter which is pending before the High Court will be governed by the orders of the Hon'ble High Court. So far as the violations are concerned, no violation has been found. Thus, no further action is required by this Tribunal.
16. In view of the above, the Original Application No.36/2025(CZ) along with I.A. No.45/2025 stand disposed of accordingly.
Sheo Kumar Singh, JM Sudhir Kumar Chaturvedi, EM 06th May, 2026, Original Application No.36/2025(CZ) (I.A. No.45/2025) RK 26 O.A. No.36/2025(CZ) Hemraj Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.