National Green Tribunal
Kamal Tiwari vs Union Of India Through The Secretary ... on 6 May, 2026
Item No.04
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
CENTRAL ZONE BENCH, BHOPAL
(THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)
Original Application No.226/2024(CZ)
Kamal Tiwari Applicant(s)
Vs.
Union of India & 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. Vaibhav Pancholy, Adv. with
Mr. Kunal Sharma Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Dr. Sapna Aggarwal, Adv. for MoEF&CC
Mr. Arvind Soni, Adv. for RSPCB
Mr. Rohit Sharma, Adv. for State of Rajasthan (R-2,
R-4, R-5 & R-9)
Ms. Abhilasha Sharma, Adv. for R-10
ORDER
1. The grievance in this application as raised by the applicant relates to identification, demarcation and mutation of the land of Van Khand Amer 54, which was notified by the State vide Notification dated 21.11.2061 and further notified vide notification dated 22.09.1980 as Wildlife Sanctuary and Eco Sensitive Zone Nahargarh Wildlife vide notification dated 08.03.2019. Various cases have been filed which raises substantial issue with regard to illegal constructions and encroachments within the wildlife sanctuary and eco sensitive zone in violation of notification and want of clear demarcation and identification or mutation in the name of forest department according to the state notification, serious disputes arose between the persons in 1 O.A. No.226/2024(CZ) Kamal Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
whose favour certain rights has been accrued and when a question was raised with regard to unauthorized and illegal construction.
2. Notices were issued to the Respondents and reply have been filed.
3. Heard the argument and perused record.
4. Submissions of the learned Counsel for the Respondent/State PCB are that the matter of recording the name of the person or the forest or mutation is within the domain of the revenue courts and the Applicants have to approach to competent courts for mutation of the name.
5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.02, 04 and 05 has submitted that matter with regard to demarcation of the boundary, a High Level Committee consisting 8 officials has been constituted and meeting has been held and it is under process.
6. It is further argued that as per the notification dated 21.11.1961, the reserved forest land in the villages of Tehsil Amer is as follows:-
2O.A. No.226/2024(CZ) Kamal Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
7. It is submitted that, in the context of the details enumerated in para 2 of the reply, an examination of the forest land specified in the notification vis-a-vis the forest land recorded in the current revenue records was conducted. Upon such examination, it was observed that in Tehsil Amer, the forest land currently recorded in the revenue records is either equal to or greater than the notified forest area in the villages of Amer, Akeda, Sheesyawas, Badagaon Jarkhya, Akhaipura, Laxminarayanpura, Daulatpura, Bagwada, Jaitpur Khichi, Acharol, Ani, Labana, Gunavata, Dhand, Harwar, and Chimanpura. However, in the villages of Mayla Baag, Jaisalya, Khairwadi, Singwana, Kacherawala, Chhapradi, Khurad, Kukas, Nestiwas, and Beed Taleda, the forest land recorded in the current revenue records is less than the notified forest area. It is stated that in those revenue villages where the area of forest land recorded in the current revenue records is less than the forest land area specified in the notification, an examination was carried out regarding the Khasra numbers pending Amal Darmad, as provided by the Forest Department. Upon such examination, it was found that, in respect of lands owned by the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA), Jaipur, the Amal Darmad was duly transferred to the Forest Department subsequent to obtaining a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from JDA. However, regarding the remaining lands owned by the 3 O.A. No.226/2024(CZ) Kamal Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur, the process of Amal Darmad in favour of the Forest Department could not be completed due to the non-issuance of a No Objection Certificate by the Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur. With regard to those Khasra numbers wherein the land is recorded as Khatedari land, the said land, after conversion, has been registered in the name of the Jaipur Development Authority. In such cases the transfer of the said land in favour of the Forest Department can be effected only subsequent to an adjudication by the competent court.
8. It is further argued that certain lands recorded in the revenue records in the name of Gram Panchayat, Irrigation Department, or Maafi Temple could not be transferred to the Forest Department in the absence of requisite orders from the competent authority. In compliance with State Order F 7 (144) 168 of Rajasthan dated 07.01.1974, the entire revenue land of village Mayla Bagh was allotted in exchange for Khasra Nos. 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 27, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 and 47 admeasuring 92 Bigha 18 Biswa, situated at Beed Jaisalya. This land is presently recorded in the Siwaychak account in the name of the Government of Rajasthan and is also reflected in Jimman No. 1 of the State Government's account. The implementation of the aforesaid order is contingent upon the approval/order of the District Collector, Jaipur.
9. It is submitted that, as per the notification dated 21.11.1961, an area of 526.500 acres of land was notified in revenue village Beed Taleda.
However, as per the current revenue records, only 190.71 hectares of land is registered in the name of the Forest Department. Thus, the area of forest land presently recorded in the revenue records is less than the area specified in the notification. It is further submitted that the entire 4 O.A. No.226/2024(CZ) Kamal Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
land in village Beed Taleda is already recorded in the name of the Forest Department, and since no other land is available in the village apart from that held by the Forest Department, no further action for transfer or execution of land in favour of the Forest Department is required. With respect to the list of private khatedari lands provided by the Forest Department, the Forest Department has no authority to terminate khatedari rights in such lands without an order from the competent court and the requisite approval at the competent level. It is further submitted that various reference cases concerning private khatedari lands are presently pending before different Hon'ble Courts.
Accordingly, no further action for execution of title in favour of the Forest Department could be undertaken at this stage.
10. 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 5 O.A. No.226/2024(CZ) Kamal Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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, 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:6
O.A. No.226/2024(CZ) Kamal Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
" Prescribed w.r.t. applicability of EC, FC, and WC in ESZ/ESA and other ecologically significant areas outside PA:7
O.A. No.226/2024(CZ) Kamal Tiwari Vs. Union of India & 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 8 O.A. No.226/2024(CZ) Kamal Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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 (hereafter in this notification referred to as the Eco-Sensitive Zone) detail of which are as under
namely:9
O.A. No.226/2024(CZ) Kamal Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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. (4) The Zonal Master Plan shall not impose any restriction on the approved existing land use, infrastructure and activities unless so 10 O.A. No.226/2024(CZ) Kamal Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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;
(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 11 O.A. No.226/2024(CZ) Kamal Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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:-4 0
.
I n 12 O.A. No.226/2024(CZ) Kamal Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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.
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 13 O.A. No.226/2024(CZ) Kamal Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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:
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 14 O.A. No.226/2024(CZ) Kamal Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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 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 15 O.A. No.226/2024(CZ) Kamal Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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.
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 16 O.A. No.226/2024(CZ) Kamal Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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.
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.
17O.A. No.226/2024(CZ) Kamal Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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 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 18 O.A. No.226/2024(CZ) Kamal Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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.
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 19 O.A. No.226/2024(CZ) Kamal Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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:
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 20 O.A. No.226/2024(CZ) Kamal Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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 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 21 O.A. No.226/2024(CZ) Kamal Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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."
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 22 O.A. No.226/2024(CZ) Kamal Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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 the settled principles of administrative law, thereby attracting the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
11. Submissions of the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.01/ MoEF&CC are that the High Level Committee has been constituted with the identification, demarcation and measurement of the land.
12. After perusal of the report, it reveals that the matter relates to the identification, demarcation, measurement, protection of the land, deletion of the name, change of the name and mutation of the name, which is not within the domain of the National Green Tribunal. For mutation of the name, the matter is pending before the revenue court or the aggrieved may file application before the competent revenue court. If there are any encroachments on the forest land, the Aggrieved/Forest Department may approach to the appropriate forum.
It is to be noted that vide order dated 16th February, 2026, this Tribunal has observed as follows:-
"5. Principal Secretary Forest & Environment Department and Principal Secretary (Revenue) are, therefore, directed to ensure that 23 O.A. No.226/2024(CZ) Kamal Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
necessary entries of forest as per notification are made in revenue records for Amer forest within two months. A special drive has to be started by the two departments in this regard to ensure that these entries are completed for the entire state within 6 months. Necessary action is required to be undertaken by Principal Secretary Forest & Environment Department and Principal Secretary, Revenue Department in this regard."
13. It is to be noted that in Original Application No.226/2023(CZ), the similar issue was raised and this Tribunal directed the authorities as follows:-
"1. The grievance in this application as raised by the applicant relates to identification, demarcation and mutation of the land of Van Khand Amer 54, which was notified by the State vide Notification dated 21.11.2061 and further notified vide notification dated 22.09.1980 as Wildlife Sanctuary and Eco Sensitive Zone Nahargarh Wildlife vide notification dated 08.03.2019. Various cases have been filed which raises substantial issue with regard to illegal constructions and encroachments within the wildlife sanctuary and eco sensitive zone in violation of notification and want of clear demarcation and identification or mutation in the name of forest department according to the state notification, serious disputes arose between the persons in whose favour certain rights has been accrued and when a question was raised with regard to unauthorized and illegal construction.
2. In these circumstances it is more appropriate to find out a reasonable and just solution to implement the notifications issued by the State Government and to identify the land and to mutate in the name of the Forest Department as per rules.
3. We deem it just and proper to constitute a committee consisting of following members:-
i. One representative from the Addl. Chief Secretary of Forest & Wildlife, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan) ii. One representative from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest cum Chief Wildlife Warden, Forest Department, Govt. of Rajasthan (Rajasthan) 24 O.A. No.226/2024(CZ) Kamal Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
iii. One representative from the Principal Secretary (Revenue), Govt. of Rajasthan, Rajasthan iv. One representative of Ex-officio Chairman/District Collector, Jaipur/Chairman of the Monitoring Committee constituted vide notification dated 08.03.2019 issued from the MoEF & CC."
14. It is reported that High Level Committee headed by the Principle Chief Conservation Forest was constituted to identify, demarcate and measure the land of forest area which have finalized it and aggrieved by the order or the action, a Writ Petition has been filed before Hon'ble the High Court and some interim orders have been passed.
15. Learned Counsel for the State relying on 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 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 25 O.A. No.226/2024(CZ) Kamal Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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."
16. Since 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.
17. The Original Application stands disposed of accordingly.
Sheo Kumar Singh, JM Sudhir Kumar Chaturvedi, EM 06th May, 2026, Original Application No.226/2024(CZ) I.D. 26 O.A. No.226/2024(CZ) Kamal Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.