National Green Tribunal
Gaurav Sharma vs Radha Soami Satsang Beas Dera Baba ... on 7 April, 2025
Item No. 18 Court No. 1
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Original Application No. 216/2024
Gaurav Sharma Applicant
Versus
Radha Soami Satsang Beas Dera Baba
Jaimal Singh Registered Society Beas
through its secretaries & Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 07.04.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER
Applicant: Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Applicant in Person
Respondents: Dr. Ankit Gupta, Adv. for R - 3 & 4 (Through VC)
Mr. Ritesh Khatri, Advocate for R - 1 & 2
ORDER
1. In this Original Application (OA) the Tribunal is examining the complaint of the Applicant in respect of large-scale illegal felling of trees by the Respondent No. 2-Radha Soami Satsang Beas Dera Baba Jaimal Singh Registered Society Beas in district Panchkula.
2. The MoEF&CC by covering letter dated 29.08.2024 has placed on record the site inspection report. The report vaguely states that during inspection no "direct evidence" of tree cutting was found.
3. The Applicant present in person has referred to the document on page 337 and has submitted that the land given by the Respondent No. 2 in exchange was not belonging to the Respondent. Referring to the 1 document Annexure 12 on page 317, he has submitted that it was a Shamlat Panchayati land. Therefore, it could not have been given in exchange by the Respondent No.2. He has referred to the document on page 64 annexure 16 in support of his submission that 55,0000 trees were existing in 1998 but as on today there is no proof of existence of any such tree. Referring to page 29, he has submitted that in the year 1991, 2033 trees were found and apart from this plantation of 1150 khair trees, pole size and 12000 khair sapling were recorded to be existing and referring to the report on page 117 he has submitted that in the year 1992 the same number of trees were found to be existing and referring to page 132, he has submitted that 5,000 additional trees which were different from the one recorded in 1991 and 1992 were noticed. He has also submitted that there is no proof of existence of these trees now and that though the formal possession of the land was given to Respondent No. 2 in 1997 but Respondent No. 2 had entered into the land in the year 1990 itself.
4. In support to his submission relating to killing of animals by the Respondent No. 2, he has referred to the following plea taken in the OA:-
"According to annexure-1 (Terms & Conditions of Haryana government for giving the Bir Ghaggar, Saket, Land, Chandimadir to R.S.S.B) clearly stated the diverted land clearly stated that no person shall hunt or shoot animals but in order to protect their horticulture farms R.S.S.B officials brutally had beaten the animals to death on diverted land, including national bird peacock and endangered wild life species including Barasingha, Deer and Neel Gaay and various other wild life species like wild boars etc. Photographs and video proofs of aforesaid killings of animals attached with annexure 9. The killings of the animals in the center were in abundance, evidences of few killings I have attached with annexure-9. Moreover, in annexure-9, it is clearly evident through R.T.I. (Right To Information) that R.S.S.B center management never inform about the death of a single animal. May be because they were afraid that government authorities will conduct post mortem of the dead bodies and their truth would be unveiled. Where one side they are preaching public that taking somebody's life is a sin at the same time on other hand to receive monetary gains by protecting farms and horticulture they are killing animals ruthlessly."2
5. He has also referred to the photographs filed annexure 9 (page 228) in support of the plea of killing of animals and the information furnished under the RTI Act on page 302 stating that no report of killing of animals was made. He has placed on record the photographs annexure page 241 onwards showing illegal felling of trees and photographs annexure 11 page 309 concerning the permanent construction raised on the forest land.
6. We had sought an explanation from Counsel for the MoEF&CC who initially at the outset had sought time to obtain the instructions and later informed that he is just proxy counsel. Latter Dr. Ankit Gupta, Counsel for the MoEF&CC appeared but he was also not in a position to answer the queries put by us. In such circumstances, we have no option but to direct Secretary, MoEF&CC to instruct a Senior Officer of the MoEF&CC to remain virtually present on the next date of hearing to assist the Tribunal.
7. Keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations and the material referred to by the Applicant today we also deem it proper to appoint an independent joint Committee headed by Sh. B.M. Bedi, Retd. District Judge, and comprising of Regional Officer, MoEF&CC, Chandigarh and a representative of the PCCF, Haryana. The representative of the PCCF, Haryana will be the coordinating agency in the Committee.
8. The Committee will visit the site, will ascertain the extent of felling of trees, if any, and the truthfulness of the allegations made by the Applicant. In that process, the Committee is also permitted to interact with the local residents and collect the evidence. The Committee will submit the report disclosing the extent of illegal cutting of trees, the violation of environmental norms and tree felling by the Respondent No. 2. The Committee will also ascertain if Respondent No. 2 has taken possession of the land in excess to one which has been received in exchange and allotted. 3
9. The Committee is directed to complete this exercise within 10 weeks and submit the report immediately thereafter. After the receipt of the report, an opportunity to file objection to the report will be given to all the concerned parties.
10. It will be open to Respondents to file response to the submissions made /material pointed out by the Applicant today.
11. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 also seeks time to file response to the reply of the Respondents No. 3 and 4. The prayer is allowed.
12. List on 11.08.2025.
Prakash Shrivastava, CP Sudhir Agarwal, JM Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM April 7, 2025 Original Application No. 216/2024 A 4