National Green Tribunal
Naveen Rana vs State Of Uttarakhand on 2 November, 2022
Item No.01 (Court No. 2)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
(By Video Conferencing)
M.A No. 54/2022
in
Original Application No. 296/2022
Naveen Rana ...Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ...Respondent
Date of hearing: 02.11.2022
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER
Applicant: None.
Respondents: Mr. Rahul Verma, AAG for State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Mukesh Verma, Advocate for State PCB.
Mr. Sanjay Upadhyay, Mr. Ayush Anand, Mr. Shubhendu
Anand, Mr. Gaurav Kumar and Mr. Saumitra Jaiswal,
Advocates for the Project Proponent.
Application is registered based on a complaint received by Post.
ORDER
1. The grievances in this present Letter Petition sent by Mr. Navin Rana, Sabhasad (Member), Nagar Panchayat, Swarg Aashram (Gharwal) are that Swarg Aashram trust is constructing shops within the distance of 100 meters from river Ganga in violation of the orders of Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court and this Tribunal without getting any construction plan sanctioned from the concerned authorities. Complaint for prohibition and demolition of unauthorized construction was made to the concerned authorities but no action has been taken.
2. Vide order dated 05.05.2022, this Tribunal constituted a Joint Committee comprising of the State PCB and District Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal and directed the same to submit factual and action taken report within two months.
M.A. No. 54/2022 Naveen Rana Vs. State of Uttarakhand -2-
3. In compliance thereof, the District Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal, Uttarakhand sent report of the Joint Committee vide letter dated 15.07.2022.
4. On due consideration of the report of the Joint Committee, this Tribunal passed the following order:-
"5. We have gone through the report and we find that initially Assistant Engineer (Irrigation) vide letter dated 04.06.2022 had mentioned that the construction in question was situated at the distance of 60 meters from the edge of the river but subsequently vide letter dated 09.06.2022 he mentioned that the construction in question was situated outside 200 meters from the centre of the river and outside one in hundred years flood area. In the report it has also been mentioned that as per the revenue record the land where unauthorised construction of two rooms has been raised falls in field no. 717 and 718 of Khata No.61 but in the report it has not been mentioned as to who is the owner of the above said land. It has also been mentioned in the report that as per orders of 'UP Jila Adhikari' (Sub-Divisional Magistrate) Yamkeshwar further construction was stopped. Copy of notice issued by the Joint Secretary/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Regional Office, Yamkeshwar, District Development Authority, Pauri has issued show cause notice to Shri Manjushree Khaitan, Chairman, Swarg Aashram Trust, Nagar Panchyat Swarg Aashram, Police Station Lakshman Jhula, Tehsil Yamkeshwar, District Pauri Garhwal.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we constitute a Joint Committee comprising representative of Central Pollution Control Board, Central Water Commission, State Pollution Control Board and National Mission for Clean Ganga and direct them to meet and undertake visit to the site within one month, verify the factual position with respect to the demarcation of Flood Plain Zone of River Ganga and submit report as to whether Flood Plain Zone of River Ganga has been demarcated in compliance with order passed by this Tribunal in O.A No. 200/2014 titled as M.C Mehta Vs. Union of India and others and whether the construction in question falls in Flood Plain Zone of River Ganga within two months by e-mail at judicial- [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF. State PCB will be the nodal agency for coordination and compliance.
7. In case the Joint Committee finds that the construction falls within Flood Plain Zone of River Ganga, a copy of the report be supplied to the Project Proponent to enable it to file its response before this tribunal on the date of hearing fixed by e-mail at judicial- [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/OCR Supported PDF and not in the form of Image PDF.
M.A. No. 54/2022 Naveen Rana Vs. State of Uttarakhand -3-
8. Notices alongwith the application and the report of the Joint Committee be also issued to the Project Proponent- Shri Manjushree Khaitan, Chairman, Swarg Aashram Trust, Nagar Panchayat Swarg Aashram, Police Station Lakshman Jhula, Tehsil Yamkeshwar, District Pauri Garhwal and the District Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal requiring them to file their response/ reply to the allegations made in the application as well as observations made in the report of Joint Committee. In its reply/response the District Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal shall also mention as to who is the owner of the land on which the construction has been raised and what action has been taken pursuant to show cause notice issued to Shri Manjushree Khaitan, as referred to above. Reply/response by the Project Proponent and the District Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal be filed within two months at [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/OCR Supported PDF and not in the form of Image PDF... "
5. In compliance of order dated 18.08.2022, copies of letter dated 17.10.2022 of District Magistrate, Garhwal and report of the Joint Committee have been filed by Officer In Charge, Collectorate Pauri vide email dated 17.10.2022.
6. The relevant part of the letter of the District Magistrate, Garhwal reads as under:-
"ekuuh; jk"Vªh; gfjr vf/kdj.k esa ;ksftr ewy vkosnu la[;k&296@2022 uohu jk.kk cuke mRrjk[k.M jkT; esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 18-08-2022 dks lUnHkZ xzg.k djus dk d"V djsaA ek0 ,u0th0Vh0 }kjk fo"k;xr izdj.k esa oknh Jh uohu jk.kk dh of.kZr f'kdk;r ^^uxj iapk;r LoxkZJe rFkk Fkkuk y{e.k>wyk {ks=kUrxZr Fkkuk y{e.k>wyk ds fudV LoxkZJe VªLV ds }kjk l{ke izkf/kdj.k ls fcuk ekufp= LohÑfr ds xaxk unh ls 100 eh0 ls de nwjh ij nqdkuksa dk fuekZ.k^^ fd;s tkus ij f'kdk;rh ij lquokbZ djrs gq;s fnukad 18- 08-2022 dks ikfjr vkns'k esa fcUnq la[;k&08 esa foi{kh LoxkZJe VªLV ds }kjk ftl Hkwfe ij fuekZ.k dk;Z fd;k gS og Hkwfe dlds LokfeRo dh gS vkSj foiJh Jh eatJh [ksrku dks dkj.k crkvks tkjh uksfVl ds vuqlkj dh x;h dk;Zokgh vk[;k lfgr fjiksVZ 02 ekg esa bZ&esy ls ek0 ,u0th0Vh0 esa nkf[ky fd;s tkus ds vkns'k gSaA fcUnq la[;k&06 esa ek0 ,u0th0Vh0 ds }kjk mDr izdj.k esa dsanzh; iznw"k.k cksMZ] dsanzh; ty vk;ksx] jkT; iznw"k.k fu;a=.k cksMZ vkSj LoPN xaxk jk"Vªh; fe'ku ds izfrfuf/k dh ,d la;qDr lfefr xfBr dj] lfefr LFkyh; fujh{k.k dj] xaxk unh ds ck< eSnkuh {ks= lhekadu ds lacU/k esa rF;kRed fLFkfr dh fjiksVZ izLrqr djsxhA ek0 ,u0th0Vh0 ds mDr vkns'k fnukad 18-08-2022 ds vuqikyu esa miftykf/kdkjh ;eds'oj@la;qDr lfpo] ftyk Lrjh; fodkl M.A. No. 54/2022 Naveen Rana Vs. State of Uttarakhand -4- izkf/kdj.k {ks= ;edsoj ls vk[;k izkIr dh x;hA izkIr vk[;k ds vuqlkj LoxkZJe VªLV }kjk ftl iz'uxr Hkwfe ij ikfdZax ds lkFk&lkFk fuekZ.kk/khu xkMZ :e dk fuekZ.k fd;k tk jgk Fkk] og Hkwfe xzke tkSad ¼orZeku uxj iapk;r tkSad½] iV~Vh mn;iqj rYyk&01] rglhy ;eds'oj tuin ikSMh x<oky ds [krkSuh [kkrk la[;k&61 [kljk la[;k&718 jdok 0-338 gSDVs;j tks fd Js.kh&1 d ¼laØe.kh; vf/kdkj okyh Hkwfe/kj½ ds :i esa LoxkZJe VªLV vkfn ds uke ntZ vfHkys[k gS] tks mudh futh Hkwfe gSA ;g Hkwfe ljdkjh Hkwfe ugha gSA ¼[krkSuh ds udy izfr layXu&02½ pwWfd foi{kh LoxkZJe VªLV ds }kjk vius mDr uki Hkwfe ij fcuk ekufp= LohÑfr ds fuekZ.k dk;Z fd;k tk jgk Fkk] ftl ij tkWpksmijkUr Jh eatwJh [ksrku] izcU/ku LoxkZJe VªLV Fkkuk y{e.k>wyk dks la;qDr lfpo] ftyk Lrjh; fodkl izkf/kdj.k {ks=h; dk;kZy; ;eds'oj ds }kjk mRrjk[k.M uxj ,oa xzke fu;kstu rFkk fodkl vf/kfu;e 1973 dh /kkjk&27¼1½ ds v/khu izkf/kdj.k {ks=kUrxZr fcuk ekufp= LohÑr ds fuekZ.k dk;Z fd;s tkus ij uksfVl tkjh fd;k x;k rFkk fuekZ.k dk;Z :dok fn;k x;kA ftl ij foi{kh LokxkZJe VªLV }kjk rRdky fuekZ.k dk;Z jksd fn;k x;k tks fd orZeku rd cUn gSA uksfVl dh lquokbZ gsrq fu;r frfFk dks LoxkZJe VªLV dh vksj ls muds izfrfuf/k Jh vuqi dksfB;ky mifLFkr gq;s muds }kjk voxr djk;k x;k fd mUgsa fuekZ.k dk;Z gsrq fodkl izkf/kdj.k ls ekufp= LohÑr djk;s tkus ds lacU/k esa tkudkjh ugha Fkh] ftl dkj.k muds }kjk fuekZ.k dk;Z izkjEHk fd;k x;k fdUrq izkf/kdj.k ds vkns'kkuqlkj rRdky fuekZ.k jksd fn;k x;k gS rFkk ekufp= cukus ,oa LohÑr djk;s tkus gsrq fodkl izkf/kdj.k ls le; dh ekax dh xbZ] tks U;k; fgr esa Lohdkj dh x;hA ftlds ifjikyu esa LoxkZJe ds }kjk ekufp= LohÑfr gsrq ftyk fodkl izkf/kdj.k esa vkWuykbZu ekufp= LohÑr gsrq vkosnu ¼i=koyh la[;k&PG/NR/0148/22-23) fd;k x;k gS ftl ij orZeku esa ekufp= LohÑfr dh dk;Zokgh xfreku gSA ¼miftykf/kdkjh ;eds'oj dh vk[;k layXu&01 ,oa ekufp= i=koyh dh Nk;k izfr layXu&3 gS½ fcUnq la[;k&06 ds vuqikyu esa dsanzh; iznw"k.k cksMZ] dsanzh; ty vk;ksx] jkT; iznw"k.k fu;a=.k cksMZ vkSj LoPN xaxk jk"Vªh; fe'ku ds izfrfuf/k dh la;qDr lfefr lfefr ds }kjk fnukad 07-10-2022 dks LFkyh; fujh{k.k fd;k x;kA la;qDr lfefr dh LFkyh; fujh{k.k vk[;k dh Nk;k izfr layXu gSA ¼layXud&04½ "
7. The relevant part of the report of the Joint Committee reads as under:-
"mijksDr fo"k;d ek0 jk"Vªh; gfjr vf/kdj.k esa ;ksftr ewy vkosnu la[;k&296@2022 uohu jk.kk cuke mRrjk[k.M jkT; esa ikfjr vkns'kksa ds vuqØe esa fuEu foHkkxksa dh la;qDr lfefr dk xBu fd;k x;kA M.A. No. 54/2022 Naveen Rana Vs. State of Uttarakhand -5- 1- dsUnzh; iznw"k.k fu;a=.k cksMZ] fnYyh 2- jk"Vªh; LoPN xaxk fe'ku] fnYyh 3- dsUnzh; ty vk;ksx] nsgjknwuA 4- mRrjk[k.M iznw"k.k fu;a=.k cksMZ] nsgjknwuA rRØe esa mRrjk[k.M iznw"k.k fu;a=.k cksMZ] cksMZ eq[;ky; ds i=kad la[;k ;w0ds0ih0lh0ch0@l0&183&565@2022@816 fnukad 23-08- 2022 ds vuqØe esa mijksDr foHkkxksa }kjk fuEu lnL;ksa dks ukfer fd;k x;k] ftlds vuqØe esa LoxkZJe VªLV }kjk cuk;s x;s fuekZ.kk/khu nqdku dk la;qDr fujh{k.k lfefr }kjk fnukad 07-10-2022 dks fd;k x;kA 1- Jh jkts'k dqekj] v/kh{k.k vfHk;ark] dsUnz;h ty vk;ksx] nsgjknwuA 2- Jhefr jhuk lrkou ¼oSKkfud ^Mh*½] dsUnzh; iznw"k.k fu;a=.k cksMZ] fnYyhA 3- Jh QStmYykg [kku] izorZu leUo;d] jk"Vªh; LoPN xaxk fe'ku] fnYyhA 4- Jh ,l0,l0 pkSgku] lgk0 oSKk0 vf/kdkjh] mRrjk[k.M iznw"k.k fu;a=.k cksMZ] nsgjknwuA fujh{k.k esa ik;k x;k fd LoxkZJe VªLV }kjk fuekZ.k LFky ij futh LVS.M dk lapkyu fd;k tk jgk gS ftlesa yxHkx 100 VSDlh@xkfM;k ikdZ dh tk ldrh gS blds vfrfjDr VSDlh LVS.M ij 2 dejksa dk vLFkkbZ Hkou Hkh fufeZr fd;k x;k gSA d{k ij njokts ugha yxs gSa ,oa d{kks ds Åij fVu 'ksM yxk;k x;k gSA Hkou ds ,d d{k esa lh0lh0Vh0oh0 ekWfuVj@dSejs yxk;s x;s gSa ftldk mijksx VSDlh LVS.M esa VSfDl;ksa dh ns[kjs[k ,oa vkokjk i'kqvksa dks VSDlh LVS.M esa jksds tkus gsrq fd;k tkrk gSA bl VSDlh LVSaM ds cxy esa ,d xyh gS ,oa mlds cxy esa y{e.k >wyk iqfyl pkSdh gSA xaxk unh ds fdukjs dh nwjh fuekZ.kk/khu LFky dh pkgjnhokjh ¼ftldk v{kka'k ,oa ns'kkarj Øe'k% 300 07" 21' ,oa 780 19" 39' gS½ ls xaxk unh ds ck;sa fdukjs ls nwjh 40 ehVj ekih x;h gS] ftls xwxy eSi ls lR;kfir Hkh fd;k x;k gSA iwoZ esa lgk;d vfHk;ark] flapkbZ mi[kaM prqFkZ] flapkbZ foHkkx] mRrjk[k.M ljdkj] nqxM~Mk ds i= la[;k 99@l0v0 IV@nqxMMk fnukad 04-06-2022 ds ek/;e ls mDr LFky dh nwjh xaxk unh ds fdukjs ls 60 ehVj n'kkZ;h x;h gSA ¼layXud&1½ Food Plain Zone ds fu/kkZj.k ds laca/k esa voxr djkuk gS fd ekuuh; jk"Vªh; gfjr vf/kdj.k esa ;ksftr ewy vkosnu la[;k 200@2014 M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India esa ikfjr vkns'k ds vuqikyu esa Flood Plain Zone ds fu/kkZj.k ds lEcU/k esa jkT; ljdkj mRrjk[kaM 'kklu] flapkbZ ,oa ck< fu;a=.k M.A. No. 54/2022 Naveen Rana Vs. State of Uttarakhand -6- vuqHkkx&2 la[;k 05@11¼2½@2021&06¼17½@2020 nsgjknwu fnukad 03 tuojh] 2022 ds ek/;e ls vf/klwpuk fuxZr dh x;h gS ¼layXud&2½ ,oa ftlesa xaxk unh ij C;kl ?kkV ¼nsoiz;kx½ cka;s ik'oZ ls HkhexkSMk cSjkt ck;sa ik'oZ rd ds {ks= dks ck< eSnku {ks= (Floor Plain Zoning) ?kksf"kr fd;k x;k gSA jkT; ljdkj }kjk vf/klwfpr 100 o"kZ ck< vko`fRr ykbu ls bl ikfdZax LFky dh nwjh 25 ehVj ,oa xaxk unh ds ck,a fdukjs ls nwjh 40 ehVj ekih x;h gSA ekuuh; jk"Vªh; gfjr vf/kdj.k ds vkosnu la[;k 200@2014 esa fn;s x;s fu.kZ; fnukad 15-12-2015 ds rgr mDr {ks= 100 ehVj ds vUnj vkrk gS] tks ,d fuf"k) {ks= gSA mDr LFky jkT; ljdkj }kjk ?kksf"kr vf/klwfpr 100 o"kZ ck< vko`fRr ds ckgj gS tcfd ekuuh; jk"Vªh; gfjr vf/kdj.k ds fu.kZ; ftlls fnukad 15-12-2015 ds rgr 100 ehVj ds vUnj fuf"k) {ks= gSA fujh{k.k ds le; Google Map ls fy;s x;s ekufp= dh izfr layXu gSA ¼layXu&3½"
8. In the course of hearing the observations made by the Joint Committee were challenged to be erroneous with reference to order dated 10.12.2015 passed by this Tribunal in O.A No. 200/2014 titled as M.C Mehta Vs. Union of India the relevant part of which is reproduced as under:-
"VI. DIRECTIONS IN RELATION TO FLOOD PLAINS A. The State of Uttarakhand shall prepare and submit to the MoEF, Tourism-cum-Plain map, Flood Plain map and zoning of flood plain shall be in accordance with the Notification dated 18th December, 2012 issued by the Ministry and the Act of 2012 afore-referred positively within 3 months from the date of pronouncement of this judgment. Upon submission, MoEF shall approve such plans with amendments or otherwise within 1 month thereafter and then it shall be notified and brought in the public domain.
B. Keeping in view the Notification of the MoEF, intent of the Act of 2012, orders passed by the Tribunal in other matters, High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases, we would order and direct that as an interim measure at least 100m from middle of the river would be treated and dealt with as 'Eco sensitive and prohibited zone'. No activity whether permanent or temporary in nature will be permitted to be carried on in this zone including camping. The only exception would be the points for picking up and dropping the guests who are doing rafting in river Ganga.
The area beyond 100 meters and less than 300 meters would be treated as regulatory zone in the hilly terrain, for which the State will comply with the above directions.
The area upto 200 meters shall be the prohibited area in the plain terrain and more than 200 meters and less than 500 meters would be treated as regulatory zone.
M.A. No. 54/2022 Naveen Rana Vs. State of Uttarakhand -7- Area/river bank/flood plain 2 kms. upstream to Rishikesh and till Border of the State of Uttarakhand towards Uttar Pradesh in river Ganges would be treated as plain terrain while upstream the above hilly terrain.
The State Government while complying with its obligations under the Act of 2012 and this judgment in this regard would keep in mind 1 in 25 years flood to be the criteria for declaring flood plain and the regulated activities which would be permitted in that area. This is the guiding factor which has complete scientific and documented studies to impose such limitations.
C. Strict supervision in that regard shall be enforced by the State agencies responsible for that purpose, primarily by the Secretary of Irrigation Department, State of Uttarakhand and the Chief Conservator of Forests, Uttarakhand. The policy so framed, with the restrictions as contemplated in the Notification of the MoEF and the Act of 2012 formulated by Government of Uttarakhand shall be placed before the Tribunal after expiry of the above stated period. D. Any activity or construction in the regulated area aforereferred where the gradient is beyond 350 should be further checked and preferably no activity should be permitted, to prevent ecological damage and land sliding in that area. All precautionary steps should be taken in that behalf.
E. In this prohibited area, no public authority or State department, including the panchayat would grant permission for any activity whatsoever, including eco-tourism except to the extent of points for pick up and dropping for river rafting."
(Emphasis supplied)
9. On 19.10.2022, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand sought time to file reply/response on behalf of the State of Uttarakhand and The District Magistrate, Pauri, Garhwal.
10. Report by way of affidavit has been filed on behalf of the District Magistrate, Pauri, Garhwal. The relevant part of the report reads as under:-
"X X X X X X
4. That it is pertinent to mention herein that, as per inspection done regarding distance parameters of land in question, where the aforesaid construction in question was raised, the distance from centre/middle of river Ganga is 205 meters from the disputed land in question, and the distance from the edge of river Ganga is approx.. 60 to 65 meters from the dispute site in question.
5. That it is respectfully submitted that in compliance of the directions passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal the following facts and relevant material for kind consideration of this Hon'ble Tribunal are as follows; M.A. No. 54/2022 Naveen Rana Vs. State of Uttarakhand -8- I. That it is most respectfully submitted that the applicant herein has raised complaint about the construction by Project Proponent - Swargashram, it is most respectfully submitted that upon the land in question the construction is being done by the Project Proponent - Swargasharm, the said land is related to Swargashram Trust who has the ownership of the said land.
II. That it is further submitted that in compliance of the directions passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal vide its order dated 8.8.2022, a report from the Joint Committee consisting of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Yamkeshwar, Joint Secretary and District Level Development Authority, Yamkeshwar was received, according to the abovementioned report, the land in question, upon which the construction of Parking as well as Guard Room was going on, the said land i.e. area measuring 0.338 HeCtare, Khatauni Khata No.61, Khasra No.718, the said land is related to Village Jonk (presently in Nagar Panchayat), Patti Udaipur Talla-01, Tehsil Yamkeshawar, District Pauri Garhwal, Uttarakhand, the said land is category-1 Ka (transferrable right land holder) and is recorded in the revenue record in the name of Swargashram Trust. The Copy of the Report of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Yamkeshwar, District Pauri Garhwal, Uttarakhand and copy of Khatauni (Revenue Record) is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURES R-3 & R-4.
III. It is respectfully submitted that because the construction upon the abovementioned Naap was being done by the Swargasharam Trust, without any map, therefore, after having inspection of the site, a Notige under Section 27 (1) Uttarakhand Nagar Evam Gram Niyojan Tatha Vikas Adhiniyam was issued by the Joint Secretary, District Level Development Authority, Regional Office, Yamkeshwar and construction was stopped because the same was being done without any sanctioned map. Thereafter, the construction work was stopped by the project proponent Swaragashram Trust and the same is presently stopped.
IV. That in view of the Notice, the representative of the Trust appeared and apprised that the trust have no knowledge about the fact of obtaining approval of map, from the concerned authority for the construction, therefore, the construction in question was started, but upon the order of the authority, the construction was stopped immediately.
V. It is respectfully submitted that the time was sought by the project proponent from the development authority for approval of the map; the same was accepted in the interest of justice. Thereafter, the Swargasharam Trust approached the Development Authority by way of online application being (File No. PG/NR/0148/22-23) for approval of the map, the same is under process.
VI. That it is also relevant to mention herein that in compliance of the directions passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal, the committee constituted by this Hon'ble Tribunal consisting of representatives of Central Pollution Control Board, Central Water Commission, Uttarakhand Pollution M.A. No. 54/2022 Naveen Rana Vs. State of Uttarakhand -9- Control Board and National Mission for Clean Ganga, inspected the site in question with regard to compliance of the directions passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A. No.200 of 2014 - M.C. Mehta -Vs- Union of India & Ors. regarding the 100 Mtrs. Distance from the river, the inspection is have already done on 07.10.2022.
VII. That as per the joint committee report, it was found after inspection that land in question is found to be 40 meters from the edge of the river, and the same is crossed checked by the google map also.
VIII. That In compliance of the directions passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A. No.200 of 2014 - M.C. Mehta - Vs- Union of India & Ors. regarding compliance of flood plain zoning, the Government of Uttarakhand vide dt. 3.1.2022 had issued the notification, and the area from Vyas Ghat, Dev Prayag on Ganga river upto Bhimgowda Barrage is declared flood plain zone.
IX. That it is pertinent to mention herein that, as per inspection done regarding distance parameters of land in question, where the aforesaid construction in question was raised, the distance from centre/middle of river Ganga is 205 meters from the disputed land in question, and the distance from the edge of river Ganga is approx.. 60 to 65 meters from the dispute site in question. The photocopy of the report is being annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE R-5."
11. None has appeared on behalf of the applicant today and the correctness of the report filed by District Magistrate, Pauri, Garhwal is not disputed.
12. It is evident from the report of the District Magistrate, Pauri, Garhwal that land comprised in khasra no. 718, which is owned by the Project Proponent-
Swargashram Trust, is situated at the distance of 205 meters from the centre/ middle of river Ganga and 60 to 65 meters from the edge of river Ganga and does not fall within Flood Plain Zone of river Ganga notified vide notification dated 03.01.2022. The construction, which was being raised by the Project Proponent without any map, was stopped by issuance of show cause notices to the Project Proponent and the Project Proponent has now submitted an application for approval of its map of construction which is under process with the concerned Authority.
M.A. No. 54/2022 Naveen Rana Vs. State of Uttarakhand -10-
13. In view of the above referred duly verified facts and circumstances of the case, no question relating to environment arising out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 and violation of environmental norms is shown to exists and, therefore, no intervention by this Tribunal, in exercise of its power under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, is warranted on the present application which is disposed of accordingly.
Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM November 2, 2022 AG