National Green Tribunal
Abhishek Chaurasia vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 February, 2026
Item Nos. 08
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
CENTRAL ZONE BENCH, BHOPAL
(THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING WITH HYBRID OPTION)
Original Application No.02/2025(CZ)
Abhishek Chaurasia Applicant(s)
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of Hearing: 10.02.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. SUDHIR KUMAR CHATURVEDI, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant (s): Mr. Kanishk Devesh Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rohit Sharma, Adv. for Municipal Counsil, Nagda
Ms. Diksha Chaturvedi, Adv. for R-8,9 & 10
Mr. Prashant M. Harne, Adv. for State of MP
Mr. Pranjal Pandey, Adv. for MPPCB
ORDER
1. The grievances of the applicant is construction raised by respondent nos. 8 & 9 on the green belt land survey no. 1378 and 1379 in the village Padlya Kalan under the Municipal Council of Nagda District Ujjain in violation Article 21, 48(A) and 51 (A) (g) of the constitution violating the environmental rules and degrading the water bodies. The contention of the applicant are that the Respondent Nos. 08, 09 & 10 is engaged in an activity of constructing large scale Residential Colony on the said green belt area at the bank of "Banbana talav". which has the potential to invade the environment laws with affecting the natural water sources, environment and fundamental rights of people from weaker section of the society. The Respondent No. 08, 09 &. 10 are demolishing the rules & regulations for the green belts through his political, economical and social power. They are changing the Green-Belt land into the Residential and Commercial area with 1 O.A. No.02/2025(CZ) Abhishek Chaurasia Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. the support of the responsible officers. The History testifies that not only human civilization but also the style of fauna has originated around rivers and water sources. Human beings are considered to be omniscient in all living creatures, that's why it's our responsibility to conserve rivers, lakes, ponds & take strong steps.
2. The matter was taken up by this Tribunal and notices were issued to the respondent. The reply has been filed. During the course of hearing a committee consisting the representative of the District Collector, Ujjain, Wetland Authority and Member Secretary, State Pollution Control Board was constituted with direction to submit the factual and action taken report. The report has been filed. Objection against the report has also been filed. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant are that the Respondent No. 08, 09 and 10 is damaging and affecting the historical water body in Nagda Dist. Ujjain named "Banbana Talav" by establishing the residential and commercial colony on the bank of the said water body and changing the green belt land into the residential cum commercial land which is not as per the rules and regulations made for conservation of the green belt areas, doing unlawful activities; the loss and damage to the environment and water body will also affect the life of the peoples, animals and nature of the said area closest to "Banbana Talav" in Nagda.
4. In reply to the above contention learned counsel for the respondent nos. 8 to 10 has argued that the application is not maintainable under Section 14 of the NGT Act 2010. In the present case, the cause of action if any began with the development of the subject Project and permissions being granted for the same. On 19.02.2024, permission was granted by the District Collector, Ujjain for development of the said Project on a total area of 3.800 hectares. Therefore, the Applicant ought to have approached this Tribunal under Section 14 of the NGT Act, 2010 latest by 19.08.2024, i.e., within the 2 O.A. No.02/2025(CZ) Abhishek Chaurasia Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. prescribed limitation period. Even otherwise, if the present Application could not be filed within such period, the Applicant ought to have filed the Application within the grace period of 60 days, i.e., latest by 18.10.2024 subject to showing sufficient cause for not filing the Application within the prescribed limitation period of 6 months. That the Applicant herein has failed to approach this Tribunal even before 18.10.2024 as the present Application was only filed on 28.12.2024 for reasons best known to the Applicant. In view thereof, the present Original Application is barred by limitation since the same has been filed after a delay of more than 2 months that too without any explanation of whatsoever nature and without filing any application for condonation of delay. Therefore, the present Original Application filed by the Applicant is liable to be rejected on the ground of limitation alone.
5. It is further submitted that the applicant has filed a complaint dated 22.11.2024 before the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Revenue, Nagda, under Section 248 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 and that was disposed of according to rules.
6. It is further submitted that the approved map depicting FTL line of the Banbana Talab dated 04.09.2017 approved by the Sub Engineer, Water Resources, Sub Division Khachrod wherein it is clear that the distance mentioned between the said Project and Banbana Talab at 3 different points i.e. 63m, 58.4m, 54m is in compliance with the Madhya Pradesh Bhumi Vikas Niyam, 2012 which prescribes a 9-meter distance for water bodies and 15 meters for rivers. Consent to Establish bearing No. CTE-60571 dated 25.06.2024 issued by MP Pollution Control Board, Bhopal under Section 25 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 21 of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Permissions bearing No. NGDLP100423965 dated 09.06.2023 issued by the Town and Country Planning Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh approving the 3 O.A. No.02/2025(CZ) Abhishek Chaurasia Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. schedule of plots and grant of design approval for development of residential colony, i.e., the said Project. Further, as mentioned in the Letter dated 09.06.2023 issued by the Office of the Joint Director, Town and Country Planning, District Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh, a no-objection certificate ("NOC") was issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Nagda vide its Letter dated 22.02.2023.
7. That in the said Letter dated 22.02.2023, permission was granted to plan/develop the said land under Section 30(1)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1973 and Rules 2(5)(c) and 27 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Development Rules, 2012 considering the fact that the land on which the said Project was situated had all the necessary access road and was vacant. Approval of map of said Project by the Tehsildar of Tehsil Nagda, District Ujjain. License has been granted in favour of the answering Respondents whereby the Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh has provided the certificate of registration as Colonizer dated 01.08.2023 bearing No. MP/UADD/BP/1942/2023 under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956; Madhya Pradesh Municipal Act, 1961 and the Madhya Pradesh Municipal (Colony Development) Rules, 2021. Permission No. 4 dated 19.02.2024 regarding permission being granted by the District Collector, Ujjain for development of the said Project on a total area of 3.800 hectares. Orders dated 09.07.2023, 12.07.2023 and 22.07.2023 passed by the Ld. Court of Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), District Ujjain approving the diversion of land from Agricultural to Residential/Commercial. That on 25.02.2025, Real Estate Regulatory Authority ("RERA"), Madhya Pradesh approved the said Project and, thus, registered the same with Registration No. P-NGD-25-547.
8. Learned counsel has further argued that one of the principal grounds raised in the present Application relates to change of land use. It is submitted that 4 O.A. No.02/2025(CZ) Abhishek Chaurasia Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. land use is a subject matter covered under the Madhya Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1973, ("Town and Country Planning Act"; also called as "The Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesi-I Adhiniyam, 1973") which is a complete code in itself and provides sufficient checks and balances to ensure that change of land use is not done in an arbitrary manner. That, as per Section 78(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act inserted vide the amendment dated 23.12.2019 titled "The Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh (Sanshodhan) Vidheyak, 2019", there is a specific bar on civil courts from entertaining any dispute relating to town development scheme. Section 78(2) has been reproduced hereunder for the ready reference of this Tribunal:
"(2) No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any dispute relating to town development scheme in respect of which the development authority is empowered by or under this Act, and no injunction shall be granted by any court in respect of any such matter." [Emphasis supplied]
9. That vide Notification bearing No. F-3-147- 2011-32 dated 11.07.2017 issued by the Urban Development and Housing Department, State of Madhya Pradesh, proposed modifications to the Draft Development Plan, 2021 for Nagda Industrial Area were notified pursuant to the powers conferred under Section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1973. As per clause 2 of the said Notification, objections/suggestions regarding the proposed modifications to the said Draft Development Plan, 2021 was invited from the public within 30 days of such publication. However, it is pertinent to note that no suggestions/objections were received from the Applicant during such stipulated time and, as such, the Applicant is hereby estopped from objecting to the same at this belated stage before this Tribunal which 5 O.A. No.02/2025(CZ) Abhishek Chaurasia Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
primarily lacks jurisdiction to entertain such objections of the Applicant regarding the Draft Development Plan, 2021.
10. Vide another Notification bearing No. 4147-MPS-496-2018 dated 30.07.2018 issued by the Urban Development and Housing Department, State of Madhya Pradesh, the aforesaid proposed modifications were once again published pursuant to Section 23 read with Section 18(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1973 on the website - www.mptownplan.gov.in in the public domain for public inspection/objections/suggestions to be submitted within 30 days from the date of the said Notification. That the Applicant did not raise any objections at this time either.
11. A similar challenge with respect to change in land use was filed before this Tribunal in the case of Raza Ahmad v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., Appeal No. 01/2013 (NGT-CZ), wherein this Tribunal dismissed the said appeal on the ground that the relief sought by the Appellant therein would not fall within the jurisdiction of the NGT since the conversion of the land use was not included in the seven enactments specified in the Schedule - I of the NGT Act. The relevant portion of the said judgment has been reproduced hereunder for the ready reference of this Tribunal:
"59. ...(d) The notification dated 03.02,2011 where by the modification from the green belt to industrial purpose was passed in exercise of the powers under Section 23(A) Chhattisgarh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam Act, 1973 and appeal/revision of the order/notification (if permissible) was maintainable under the said act. The relief sought for by the appellant would not fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal since the said conversion of the land use was not included in the seven enactments specified in the Schedule - I of the NGT Act.
...
6 O.A. No.02/2025(CZ) Abhishek Chaurasia Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
(g) The project is in accordance with the EC issued from the competent authority and notification issued from the State. The applicant failed to prove that the project is detrimental to the cause of environment.
(h) In view of the above, the appeal is devoid of any merit and deserved to be dismissed and, dismissed accordingly."
12. In The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. v. Yogendera Mohan Sengupta & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 36, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"85. ...We are of the considered view that when the TCP Act empowers the State Government and the Director to exercise the powers to enact a piece of delegated legislation, the NGT could not have imposed fetters on such powers and directed it to exercise its powers in a particular manner. ...
104. However, we are of the considered view that the NGT could not have directed the delegatee who has been delegated powers under the TCP Act to enact the regulations, to do so in a particular manner. As a matter of fact, the NGT has imposed fetters on the exercise of powers by the delegatee, who has been delegated such powers by the competent legislature. In any case, it is clear that there were sufficient safeguards under the provisions of the TCP Act inasmuch as an aggrieved citizen was entitled to raise objections, give suggestions and was also entitled to an opportunity of hearing on more than one occasion."
Since the present case revolves around the Madhya Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1973 which is a self-sufficient legislation and a Code in itself, this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to entertain the present Application.
13. As is clear from the Report dated 26.12.2024 of Tehsildar Nagda, the Applicant has made allegations of unauthorized encroachment against the 7 O.A. No.02/2025(CZ) Abhishek Chaurasia Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. answering Respondents. This is not the first time when such allegation has been raised by the Applicant as similar allegation has been raised on the basis of which a complaint dated 22.11.2024 was filed before the Tehsildar, Nagda who, upon receipt of the said complaint, had carried out inspection and had demarcated the boundaries of the said Project site. Pursuant to such inspection, the Applicant's allegation of alleged encroachment by the answering Respondents was proven to be false as the Tehsildar found the Survey No. 1378 and 1379 where the subject Project is situated to be vacant.
14. The present Application is based on mere allegations without substantive evidence to prove any violation of environmental regulations by the Vatika Group. The Applicant claims that the land conversion from green belt to residential use is unlawful. This assertion is factually incorrect as the Nagda Master Plan 2021 was duly notified by the competent planning authority of the State Government and it legally converted the land from green belt to residential use following all the statutory procedures.
15. The reliance placed by the Applicant on various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court pertains to unauthorized land conversions whereas, in the present case, the conversion was done strictly as per the due process of law. Upon a bare perusal of the Master Plan 2021, it is evident that the land use change was incorporated through proper public consultations and no objections were raised at the relevant time. Furthermore, there is no directive barring the land use modification under due process, as done in the present case in favour of the answering Respondents. Additionally, the municipal authorities have acted in accordance with their jurisdiction and no inaction and/or dereliction of duty has been established by the Applicant.
16. The Applicant has failed to establish any actual encroachment, environmental damage or regulatory violation caused by the said Project. 8 O.A. No.02/2025(CZ) Abhishek Chaurasia Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. The said Project site is well beyond the statutory buffer zone required for water bodies under the Madhya Pradesh Bhumi Vikas Niyam, 2012 which prescribes a 9-meter distance for water bodies and 15 meters for rivers. In fact Banbana Talav (Full Tank Level- FTL) is more than 50 meters away from the boundary wall of the project.
17. That the land use conversion for the said Project was carried out through the legally prescribed procedure as per the Nagda Master Plan 2021. It is pertinent to note that, though the Master Plan 2011 originally designated the subject land as a green belt, in 2020, after due deliberation, public notice, and stakeholder consultation, the subject land was reclassified for residential use in the updated Master Plan 2021. This conversion was carried out by the competent authority of the State Government in accordance with the law and was never challenged at the relevant time. Therefore, the allegation of the Applicant to the effect that the answering Respondents have changed the green belt area into residential/commercial area in connivance with Government officers is vehemently denied for being baseless, vexatious and incorrect.
18. The said Project adheres to all legal and environmental regulations, including approvals from the Town and Country Planning Department, Ujjain; the Municipal Council of Nagda, and the Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board (MPPCB). In addition, necessary permissions concerning environmental clearances and layout approvals have been duly obtained before the commencement of the said Project and that the said Project is a significant urban development initiative aimed at providing residential and commercial infrastructure for the local population. That the said Project has already created employment opportunities for hundreds of local workers and has contributed to the economic growth of the region.
19. The members of the committee visited the site and submitted the report as follows :-
9
O.A. No.02/2025(CZ) Abhishek Chaurasia Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
1. Shri Ravindra S/O Manoharlal Kanthed (Anand Vatika) has obtained NOC/Permission/Consent for Survey no. 1378/1/1, 1378/1/2, 1378/1/3, 1378/1/5, 1378/1/6, 1378/1/7, 1378/1/8, 1378/2/1, 1378/2/2, 1378/2/3, 1378/2/4, 1378/2/5, 1379/1, 1379/2, 1379/3, 1379/4, 1380/10/4, 1380/4/1/1/1/2, 1380/4/1/1/2, 1380/4/1/2/1, 1380/4/1/3/1, 1380/4/1/3/2, 1380/4/1/4, 1380/4/1/5, 1380/4/1/6, 1380/4/1/7, 1380/4/3/1, 1380/4/3/2, 1380/4/3/3, 1380/4/3/4, 1380/4/3/5, 1380/4/3/6, 1381/4/1, 1381/4/2, 1381/4/3, 1381/4/4 एवं 1381/4/5 Total Rakba 3.8 Hectare at village Padlayakala, Tehsil - Nagda, Distt.
Ujjain. from following Govt. Agencies:
i. Town & Country Planning Ujjain Letter no.
NGDLP100423965 dated 09 June 2023.
ii. कार्ाालर् कलेक्टर (कॉलोनी सेल) जिला उज्जैन का पत्र क्रमांक / का.जव. अन./2024/77 जिनांक 19 फरवरी 2024.
iii. Consent to Established is granted by outward no. 120753 dated 25-06-2024 from, M.P. Pollution Control Board. With condition This consent to establish in no way be taken as measures of proof that the project proponent has not violated any pollution control laws at any time in the past. Hence, whatsoever may be decision of the Hon'ble Court/NGT etc shall be binding to both Project Proponent and this Board."
2. The above mention survey no. in point 1 in the village Padlya Kalan under the Municipal Council of Nagda District Ujjain are situated near Banbana talab near Banbani village.
10 O.A. No.02/2025(CZ) Abhishek Chaurasia Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
3. Government of India, MoEF&CC notified Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
4. As per the National Wetland Decadal Change Atlas, 202 published by Space Applications Centre- ISRO Ahmadaba a total of 2, 31,195 wetlands (at 1:50000 scales ar area>2.25 ha) have been mapped in the Country.
5. In compliance of Hon'ble Supreme Court order date October 4, 2017, (WP No. 230/2001), the Ministry Environment, Forest & Climate Change, Government India, issued an Office Memorandum on March 8, 202 mentioned that the 2, 01,503 wetlands (>2.25 ha) as per the National Wetland Inventory and Assessment (NWIA), 201 should be protected as per Rule 4 of the Wetland (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017.
6. Restrictions of activities in wetlands as per Rule 4 of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017 are as follows:
1) The wetlands shall be conserved and managed in accordance with the principle of 'wise use' as determine by the Wetland Authority.
2) The following activities shall be prohibited within the wetlands, namely,-
i. Conversion for non-wetland uses including encroachment of any kind;
ii. Setting up of any industry and expansion of existing industries;
iii. Manufacture or handling or storage or disposal of construction and demolition waste 11 O.A. No.02/2025(CZ) Abhishek Chaurasia Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
covered under the Construction and Demolition Waste Management Rules, 2016;
hazardous substances covered under the Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemical Rules, 1989 or the Rules for Manufacture, Use, Import, Export and Storage of Hazardous Micro-organisms Genetically engineered organisms or cells, 1989 or the Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008; electronic waste covered under the E-Waste (Management) Rules, 2016;
iv. Solid waste dumping;
v. Discharge of untreated wastes and effluents from industries, cities, towns, villages and other human settlements;
vi. Any construction of a permanent nature except for boat jetties within fifty metres from the mean high flood level observed in the past ten calculated years from the date of commencement of these rules; and, vii. Poaching.
7. As per ISRO (2021) list a total 13947 wetlands have been mapped at 1:50,000 scale in the state of Madhya Pradesh.
8. Banbana talab near Banbani village (Wetland ID-MP012715 & area- 189.88 & Geographical Location Longitude 75.44821 & latitude 23.45661) is also includes in the Wetlands list of Ujjain district.
12 O.A. No.02/2025(CZ) Abhishek Chaurasia Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
9. Therefore, Rule 4 of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017 will be applicable on Banbana Talab, Nagda of district Ujjain.
10. In compliance of Hon'ble Supreme Court order dated 11 December 2024 (WP No. 304/2018, Anand Arya Vs Union of India & others along-with WP 230/2001 and WP No. 302/2020), the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, Government of India, issued an Office Memorandum dated 20 December 2024.
11. Hon'ble Supreme Court has been directed that "Each of the State/UT Wetland Authorities shall complete ground Truthing as well as the demarcation of Wetland boundaries of each of the Wetland which have been identified for their State by Space Application Center Atlas (SAC Atlas), 2021 as expeditiously as possible, but definitely within period of three months from 11.12.2024.
12. In compliance of the Hon'ble Supreme Court directions, the Environment Department & Revenue department.have jointly issued a letter to all the District Collectors for Revenue Wetlands. Similarly, Environment Department and Forest department have also jointly issued a letter to all the District Forest Officers (DFOs) including Ujjain District to complete Ground Truthing as well as the Demarcation each of the which have been listed in the ISRO Atlas, 2021.
13. कार्ाालर् अनु.जव.अजि. िल संसािन उपसंभाग खाचरौि by their letter no. 30 dated 21-02-2025 gives information regarding FTL of Padliya (Banbana Talab). As per this letter मेरे द्वारा रािस्व पटवारी श्री अजनल शमाा के साथ पत्र के पररपालन में जिनांक 04.09.17 को पाडल्या कला की एफ.टी.एल. लाईन के जचन्ांकन हेतु संर्ुक्त रूप से सवेक्षण जकर्ा गर्ा। तिनुसार 13 O.A. No.02/2025(CZ) Abhishek Chaurasia Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
एफ.टी.एल. लाईन को संलग्न नक्शे पर िशाार्ा िाकर मौके पर जचन्ांजकत जकर्ा गर्ा। सवेक्षण अनुसार पाडल्या कला की एफ.टी.एल. लाईन सवे न. 1378/1/1, 1378/1/2, 1378/1/3. 1378/1/4, 1379/1. 1378/1/8, 1378/3, 1373, 1374 की उत्तर जिशा की मेड़ से होकर गुिरती है। संलग्न नक्शे में पाडल्या कला के एफ.टी.एल. लाईन िशााई गई है। एफ.टी.एल. की िू री सवे नं. 1374 के उत्तर जिशा 53 मी. सवे 1378/2/5 की उत्तर जिशा में 58.4 मी. तथा सवे नं. 1378/1/3 की उत्तर जिशा में मेड से 63 मीटर िू री पर एफ.टी.एल. लाईन गुिरती है। पाडल्या कला तालाब की एफ.टी. एल. लाईन के अंतगात भूजम िल संसािन जवभाग के स्वाजमत्व की है।"
Based on the revenue records provided by WRD as above, the ongoing project site is located outside the Banbana talab and the construction activities were seen beyond FTL.
14. The information submitted by संर्ुक्त संचालक, नगर तथा ग्राम जनवेश, उज्जैन vide the letter no. 267 dated 01-03-2025.
"उक्त अजभन्यास अंगीकृत नागिा जवकास र्ोिना 2035 के प्राविानों के तहत बनबना तालाब से 30 मीटर का हररत क्षेत्र रखते हुए प्रस्ताजवत आवासीर् उपर्ोग के अंतगात अनुमोजित जकर्ा गर्ा है।"
"अंगीकृत नागिा जवकास र्ोिना-2021 में बनबना तालाब के पास िो ग्रीन बेल्ट रखा गर्ा था उसे नागिा जवकास र्ोिना 2035 में र्थावत रखा गर्ा है।"
Recommendation:-
Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Nagda under District Administration Ujjain & CMO, Municipal Council Nagda District Ujjain (M.P.) shall ensure the compliance of Rule 4 of Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017." 14 O.A. No.02/2025(CZ) Abhishek Chaurasia Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
20. Contention and submission of the learned counsel for the respondent no. 7 Municipal Council, Nagda are that the Talab referred to in this paragraph is located at a distance of more than 5 kilometers from the Chambal River, and is not connected in any manner to the Chambal River. The Talab is managed, maintained and controlled entirely by the Water Resources Department (WRD) and not by the Municipal Council, Nagda. The primary purpose of the Talab has been wrongly stated by the Petitioner, and it is clarified that not a single drop of water is drawn from the said Talab for water supply purposes. The Chambal River Stop Dam is the sole source of water for drinking water supply in the jurisdiction of the answering Respondent. Hence, no responsibility or obligation arises against the answering Respondent in relation to the Talab or the environmental concerns raised in this paragraph and further that area falls within the domain of the revenue department and the town country planning department and that the maintenance and management of the Talab is already under the jurisdiction of the water resource department.
21. Learned counsel for the State PCB Ms. Parul Bhadoria has argued that the answering respondent being a member of the committee, undertakes the Joint Committee Report in toto and that for the convenience of this Tribunal the relevant extract of the Joint Committee is reproduced herein below :
"Based on the revenue records provided by WRD as above, the ongoing project site is located outside the Banbana talab and the construction activities were seen beyond FTL. RECOMMENDATIONS Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Nagda under District Administration Ujjain & CMO, Municipal Council Nagda District Ujjain (M.P.) shall ensure the compliance of Rule 4 of Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017." 15
O.A. No.02/2025(CZ) Abhishek Chaurasia Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
22. That the answering respondent issued Consent to Establish dated 25.06.2024 in favor of M/s Anand Vatika, Village Padlayakala, Nagda, District Ujjain, subject to strict compliance with the conditions stipulated therein and further argued that requisite permission has been granted by the authorities concerned and that there are no violation reported in the joint committee report.
23. Learned counsel for the State Mr. Prashant M. Harne has argued that Shri Ravindra S/o Manoharlal Kanthed, Proprietor of Anand Vatika (Respondents No. 8 to 10, hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Vatika Group"), has obtained the requisite No Objection Certificate (NOC), Permission, and Consent in respect of the following survey numbers situated at Village Padlayakala, Tehsil - Nagda, District - Ujjain: 1378/1/1, 1378/1/2, 1378/1/3, 1378/1/5, 1378/1/6, 1378/1/7, 1378/1/8, 1378/2/1, 1378/2/2, 1378/2/3, 1378/2/4, 1378/2/5, 1379/1, 1379/2, 1379/3, 1379/4, 1380/10/4, 1380/4/1/1/1/2, 1380/4/1/1/2, 1380/4/1/2/1, 1380/4/1/3/1, 1380/4/1/3/2, 1380/4/1/4, 1380/4/1/5, 1380/4/1/6, 1380/4/1/7, 1380/4/3/1, 1380/4/3/2, 1380/4/3/3, 1380/4/3/4, 1380/4/3/5, 1380/4/3/6, 1381/4/1, 1381/4/2, 1381/4/3, 1381/4/4 and 1381/4/5, admeasuring a total area (Rakba) of 3.8 hectares.
24. That, the Town and Country Planning Department, Ujjain, has accorded development permission to the said Respondents vide Letter No. NGDLP100423965 dated 09.06.2023. upon perusal of the records furnished by the Water Resources Department (WRD), it is evident that the project site and construction activity in question is situated outside the 50 meters from the FTL of Banbana Talab. That the information furnished by the Office of the Joint Director, Town and Country Planning, Ujjain, vide Letter No. 267 dated 01.03.2025, has been duly taken into consideration for the purpose of verification of the facts pertaining to the subject matter. 16 O.A. No.02/2025(CZ) Abhishek Chaurasia Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
25. That an application by Shri Manoharlal Kanthed S/o Shri Motilal Kanthed was moved before the Tahsildar in relation to demarcation of land survey no. 1378/1/3, total land plot 1, area 0.279 hectares, by TSM Machine situated in village Padlya Kalan. It is further submitted that demarcation was conducted after giving due notices. An application by Shri Ravindra Kanthed S/o Shri Manoharlal Kanthed was moved before the Tahsildar in relation to demarcation of land survey no. 1378/1/5, 1378/1/6, 1378/1/7, 1378/2/2, 1378/2/3, 1378/2/4, 1379/3, 1380/4/1/4, 1380/4/1/5, 1380/4/1/7, 1380/4/3/3, 1380/4/3/4, 1380/4/3/5, 1381/4/2, 1381/4/3, 1381/4/4, 1381/4/5, 1380/4/1/1/2, 1380/4/1/2/1, 1380/4/1/3/1, 1378/1/1, 1378/2/1, 1379/1, 1380/4/3/1, 1381/4/1, 1380/4/3/2, 1380/10/4, 1380/4/1/3/2 total land plot 29, area 0.054, 0.041, 0.041, 0.159, 0.119, 0.119, 0.136, 0.041, 0.039, 0.124, 0.059, 0.041, 0.043, 0.018, 0.013, 0.027, 0.008, 0.0077, 0.164, 0.158, 0.054, 0.159, 0.136, 0.059, 0.018, 0.040, 0.0020, 0.0077, hectares, by TSM Machine situated in village Padlya Kalan. It is further submitted that demarcation was conducted after giving due notices and further argued that no construction activities has been carried out within the prescribed green belt zone of the periphery of the Banbana Talab. The project site as verified from the relevant records and field inspections passed entirely outside of the said restricted area. According to the State of Madhya Pradesh there are no violation reported.
26. Submission of the learned counsel for the State Wetland Authority are that in compliance of Hon'ble Supreme Court order dated October 4, 2017, (WP No. 230/2001), the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, Government of India, issued an Office Memorandum on March 8, 2022 mentioned that the 2, 01,503 wetlands (>2.25 ha) as per the National Wetland Inventory and Assessment (NWIA), 2011 should be protected as per Rule 4 of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017. That, 17 O.A. No.02/2025(CZ) Abhishek Chaurasia Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. as per ISRO (2021) list a total 13565 wetlands have been mapped at 1:50,000 scale in the state of Madhya Pradesh and Banbana talab near Banbani village (Wetland ID-MP012715 & area- 189.88 & Geographical Location- Longitude 75.44821 & latitude 23.45661) is also included in the Wetlands list of Ujjain. Therefore, Rule 4 of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017 will be applicable on Banbana Talab, Nagda of district Ujjain.
27. Restrictions of activities in wetlands as per Rule 4 of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017 are as follows: -
i. Conversion for non-wetland uses including encroachment of any kind;
ii. Setting up of any industry and expansion of existing industries;
iii. Manufacture or handling or storage or disposal of construction and demolition waste covered under the Construction and Demolition Waste Management Rules, 2016; hazardous substances covered under the Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemical Rules, 1989 or the Rules for Manufacture, Use, Import, Export and Storage of Hazardous Micro-organisms Genetically engineered organisms or cells, 1989 or the Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008; electronic waste covered under the E-Waste (Management) Rules, 2016;
iv. Solid waste dumping;
v. Discharge of untreated wastes and effluents from
industries, cities, towns, villages and other human settlements;
18 O.A. No.02/2025(CZ) Abhishek Chaurasia Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
vi. Any construction of a permanent nature except for boat jetties within fifty metres from the mean high flood level observed in the past ten years calculated from the date of commencement of these rules; and, vii. Poaching.
28. The answering respondent vide letter dated 20.08.2025 & 03.10.2023 directed Collectors of all Districts within the State of Madhya Pradesh, regarding the compliance with the directions issued in accordance with the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in WP (Civil) No. 230/2001, M.K. Balakrishnan vs. Union of India & Others, that all wetlands and ponds within district boundaries having an area exceeding 2.25 hectares, as identified in the ISRO Wetland Inventory (2021), shall be governed by the prohibitions under Rule 4(2) of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017.
29. Major thrust of the learned counsel for the applicant are against the report of the joint committee and submitted that the report is misconceived and the committee has not examined it and there are certain bias and its evidentiary deficiencies in the measurement and technical and procedural lapses by the joint committee report.
30. In response to the above contention, the argument advanced by the Learned counsel for the Respondent/Project Proponent 8 to 10, Ms. Diksha Chaturvedi are that the findings of the Joint Committee unequivocally record that:
• The project proponent (Respondents 8-10) has obtained all necessary statutory permissions including layout approval from the Town and Country Planning Department, registration as colonizer, land-diversion orders from the competent authority, 19 O.A. No.02/2025(CZ) Abhishek Chaurasia Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
and Consent to Establish from the M.P. Pollution Control Board;
• The project site lies beyond the Full Tank Level (FTL) of Banbana Talav, as demarcated by the Water Resources Department; and • No construction activity has been undertaken within the submergence or buffer zone of the Talav.
31. The visuals relied upon do not depict Banbana Talav; rather, they show rainwater accumulated in excavated pits resulting from prior illegal mining operations in the adjoining area. Complaints regarding such mining activities and resultant depressions have long been submitted to the competent authorities. During monsoon, these pits temporarily collect water, creating a deceptive impression of an extended lake. The Petitioner has deliberately sought to misrepresent these mined pits as Banbana Talav, thereby attempting to mislead this Tribunal.
32. That the most crucial and conclusive piece of evidence establishing the factual position on record is the Full Tank Level (FTL) report dated 05.09.2017 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Water Resources Department, Ujjain. The said report was prepared following a joint survey conducted on 04.09.2017, undertaken pursuant to directions from the Revenue Patwari for the purpose of determining and demarcating the FTL line of Padliya Kalan Talab (locally known as Banbana Talav).
33. The WRD report categorically records that the FTL line passes along the northern embankment (medh) of Khasra Nos. 1378/1/1, 1378/1/2, 1378/1/3, 1378/1/4, 1379/1, 1378/1/8, 1378/3, 1373, and 1374, and further specifies the measured distances between the FTL line and the project boundary as:
• 53 meters in Khasra No. 1374, 20 O.A. No.02/2025(CZ) Abhishek Chaurasia Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. • 58.4 meters in Khasra No. 1378/2/5 (north direction), and • 63 meters in Khasra No. 1378/13 (south direction).
34. These precise measurements, recorded by the competent technical authority of the State Government, conclusively establish that the Anand Vatika Project lies more than 50 meters away from the Full Tank Level of Banbana Talav. This distance exceeds the statutory buffer limits prescribed under Rule 35 of the Madhya Pradesh Bhumi Vikas Niyam, 2012, which mandates a minimum setback of 9 meters from the highest flood level of a tank or pond and 15 meters from a river. Accordingly, the project in question is not only compliant with the governing Town and Country Planning norms but also demonstrably outside any submergence, catchment, or wetland protection zone. The WRD report, being an official document prepared under seal of a government officer, holds presumptive evidentiary value and thus outweighs any unauthenticated private material such as the video relied upon by the Petitioner.
35. It is further argued that the Respondents rely on Google Earth satellite imagery dated 16.04.2025, which clearly depicts the existence of a high- tension electricity line (transmission corridor) running parallel to the project boundary. The measurement tool in the said satellite image shows a map length of 65.33 meters between the Anand Vatika project boundary and the transmission towers situated in the very location that the counsel for the Petitioner sought to project before this Tribunal as being "submerged under the Talab" and that the presence of an operational high-tension electric line within that area conclusively disproves the claim that the zone forms part of Banbana Talab or its submerged bed. Under the regulations of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board and the Central Electricity Authority (Safety Requirements for Construction and Maintenance of Electric Lines) Regulations, 2010, no transmission tower or live electrical line can be 21 O.A. No.02/2025(CZ) Abhishek Chaurasia Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. installed within the water spread or submerged area of any lake or pond, both for structural and public-safety reasons.
36. Therefore, the existence of these towers within the very tract shown in the video by the Petitioner demonstrates that the visuals relied upon do not depict Banbana Talab, but rather dry, nonsubmerged land containing permanent infrastructure, clearly contradicting the narrative of the Petitioner and that this geospatial evidence further corroborates the WRD FTL Report, which records the FTL line as being more than 50 meters away from the project boundary, and also supports the Joint Committee Report confirming that the project is outside the influence zone of the Talab.
37. With regard to the green-belt and buffer-zone requirements it is argued that Respondents 8 to 10 have voluntarily left a 20-meter-wide green-belt zone along the boundary of the project adjoining the FTL line, far exceeding the statutory requirement under the Town and Country Planning norms. This green belt has been developed with dense plantation and natural landscaping and is intended to function as an ecological buffer. It prevents runoff, enhances groundwater percolation, and maintains the visual and environmental separation between the project and Banbana Talab. The provision for such green area and rainwater harvesting systems has been specifically approved by the Town and Country Planning Department, Ujjain, in the sanctioned layout plan, in compliance with Rule 78(4) of the M.P. Bhumi Vikas Rules, 1984. The same was also acknowledged during the inspection carried out by the Joint Committee.
38. The Petitioner has alleged that the measurement of the FTL undertaken by the Joint Committee was from the "farthest point" of the colony, implying manipulation in distance determination. This allegation is wholly unfounded. The WRD letter dated 01.09.2017, issued by the Sub-Divisional 22 O.A. No.02/2025(CZ) Abhishek Chaurasia Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Officer, Water Resources Department, Ujjain, after a joint survey with the Revenue Patwari on 04.09.2017, explicitly records that the FTL line passes along the northern embankment (medh) of Khasra Nos. 1378/1/1, 1378/1/2, 1378/1/3, 1378/1/4, 1379/1, 1378/1/8, 1378/3, 1373, and 1374, and the measured distances from the Anand Vatika project boundary to the FTL are 53.0 meters, 58.4 meters, and 63.0 meters, respectively.
39. The Full Tank Level (FTL) of a government-constructed irrigation tank is a fixed hydraulic parameter, determined through engineering design and cannot fluctuate over time unless officially revised by the Water Resources Department through a new notification. Therefore, the contention that the 2017 WRD report has become "outdated" or "irrelevant" is scientifically and administratively untenable. The same FTL line remains valid today and has been duly acknowledged by the Joint Committee as the reference baseline.
40. The Petitioner has argued that construction is impermissible within 50 meters of a wetland boundary under Rule 4(vi) of the Wetlands Rules, 2017. This argument ignores the factual foundation of the case. The WRD FTL report and Joint Committee measurements both clearly establish that the project is located more than 50 meters away from the FTL, specifically between 53 to 63 meters. Therefore, even assuming arguendo that Banbana Talav were to be treated as a "wetland," there would be no violation of Rule 4(vi). That there is no physical discharge, siltation, or obstruction caused by the project to the hydrology or catchment of Banbana Talav. The design of the colony incorporates stormwater drains and recharge pits to prevent any surface runoff toward the Talav, thereby ensuring environmental compliance even beyond the mandatory distance buffer.
23 O.A. No.02/2025(CZ) Abhishek Chaurasia Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
41. The approved layout plan sanctioned by the Town and Country Planning Department, Ujjain incorporates a 20-meter-wide landscaped green area, followed by a 7-meter internal service road, along the Talav-facing side of the project. Consequently, no building structure exists within 27 meters of the boundary wall. When combined with the minimum 53-meter separation between the FTL and the colony boundary, the total offset between the FTL and the nearest constructed unit is well above 80 meters. The landscaped buffer zone has been fully developed with plantation and grass cover, serving as a rainwater recharge and ecological buffer. The Joint Committee inspected this green belt and found no violation or deviation. Hence, the allegation of construction "within 10 meters of the Talav" is entirely false and contrary to record.
42. In view of the above discussion the facts are very clear that the NOC has been taken from the Town and Country Planning, Ujjain, office of the Collector, Ujjain, consent to establish has been granted by the State Pollution Control Board and the office of the Town and Country Planning, Ujjain as issued the sanctioned and approval beyond the restricted area as per Master Plan 2035.
43. We have also examined the relief clause in which the applicant has prayed for constituting a committee and to examine the matter and by means of constituting the committee we have called a report and that there are no violations of environmental norms. There are no construction in the green belt area and no encroachment has been found in the water body. Accordingly, no violation has been reported nor proved by any cogent evidence by the applicant. The application and allegations are without any legs and no merit and deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. However, we direct the respondent Collector concerned and the wetland 24 O.A. No.02/2025(CZ) Abhishek Chaurasia Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. authority that the rule 4 of the Wetland (Conservation and Management) Rule, 2017 must be strictly observed and Municipal Counsil, Nagda, District Ujjain should ensure that there should not be any unlawfull construction or encroachment in the water body and further that there shall not be any discharge of any untreated water into the water bodies.
44. With these observations the Original Application No. 02/2025(CZ) stands disposed of.
Sheo Kumar Singh, JM Sudhir Kumar Chaturvedi, EM 10th February, 2026 OA No.02/2025(CZ) PN 25 O.A. No.02/2025(CZ) Abhishek Chaurasia Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.