National Green Tribunal
Rajendra Singh vs State Of Rajasthan Through Chief ... on 26 September, 2025
Item No.02
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
CENTRAL ZONE BENCH, BHOPAL
(Through Video Conferencing)
Original Application No.229/2024(CZ)
(I.A. No.149/2024 & I.A. No.52/2025)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Rajendra Singh,
S/o Shri Shiv Ram Singh,
Aged around 63 years,
R/o 627, Bhojpur, Momoliya Pada Mandrayal,
District-Karauli, Rajasthan,
Applicant(s)
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan,
Through Chief Secretary,
Secretariat, Jaipur, Respondent No.01
2. Ministry of Environment, Forest &
Climate Change(MOEF & CC),
Through Secretary, Indira
Paryavaran Bhawan Jorbagh Road,
New Delhi, Respondent No.02
3. The Principal Chief Conservator
Of Forests,
Aranya Bhawan, Mahatma Gandhi
Rd, Jhalana Institutional Area,
Jhalana Doongri Jaipur Rajasthan, Respondent No.03
4. Deputy Conservator of Forest,
Karauli,
Dy. Field Director II Tiger Project
Ranthambore Gadka Ki Choki Karoli
Rajasthan, Respondent No.04
5. District Collector, Karauli,
Collectorate Circle, Bhoodara Bazar,
Gayatri Nagar, Karauli Rajasthan, Respondent No.5
Rajasthan Pollution Control
6.
Board,
Through Member Secretary 4,
Jhalana Institutional Area Jhalana
Respondent No.6
Doongri, Jaipur Rajasthan,
1
O.A. No.229/2024(CZ) Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
7. Gram Panchayat Mongepura,
Through Sarpanch Mandrayal
Block, Karauli Rajasthan, Respondent No.7
8. Public Works Department,
Through Chief Engineer Wing-1,
PWD Head Office, Jaipur-Nagaur
Road, Near Jai Mahal Palaca Hotel,
Kamala Nehru Nagar, Hasanpura,
Jaipur Rajasthan, Respondent No.8
9. Tehsil, Mandrayal,
Through Tehsildar, Mandrayal
Tehsil Officer, Near Bus Stand
Ramleela Chowk Mandrayal Karauli,
Rajasthan, Respondent No.9
10. Panchayati Samiti Mandal,
Through Block Development Officer ,
Panchayat Samiti Office, Near Sheli
Wale Hanumanji Mandir Karanpur
Road, Mandrayal, Dist Karauli,
Rajasthan, Respondent No.10
11. Treasury Office,
Through Treasury Officer Gram
Nayagaon Mandrayal, Dist Karauli,
Rajasthan, Respondent No.11
12. Shri Ramesh Chand Meena,
S/o Shri Shankar Lal Meena
Nayagoan, Gram Panchayat
Mongepura Tehsil Mandrayal,
Karauli Rajasthan, Respondent No.12
COUNSELS FOR APPLICANT(S):
Ms. Meenakshi Patidar, Adv.
COUNSELS FOR RESPONDENT(S):
Mr. Rohit Sharma, Adv. for RSPCB
Mr. Shoeb H. Khan, Adv. for State of Rajasthan
Mr. Sachin K. Verma, Adv. for R-12
Ms. Harshita Tejwani, Adv. for R-7
Mr. Om Shankar Shrivastava, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. SUDHIR KUMAR CHATURVEDI, EXPERT MEMBER
2
O.A. No.229/2024(CZ) Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Date of completion of hearing and reserving of order : 22.09.2025
Date of uploading of order on website : 26.09.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Issue raised in this application is with respect to Protected Forest Kaila Devi Sanctuary situated in the northern extension of the Ranthambore National Park which was declared as a 'Critical Tiger Reserve' and was proposed to be an Eco Sensitive Zone (ESZ) by the Government of Rajasthan and communicated to the Ministry of Forest and Environment vide a draft notification submitted in the year 2011, which is under deliberations. The prayer in this application is for issue of directions to the Respondent No.2 to actively pursue the said draft notification and to issue a final notification at the earliest for the Ranthambore National Park for which Kela Devi Sanctuary is an extended part. Further prayer is that the construction activities, which are in prohibited categories, should not be permitted to be continued in the region of the protected area.
2. The matter was taken up by the Tribunal and notices were issued to the Respondents to submit the reply. Accordingly, reply have been filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
4. Submissions of the learned counsel for the Applicant are that the Kailadevi Wildlife Sanctuary (KWS) is the northern extension of the Ranthambore National Park and falls within the Buffer Zone of the Ranthamboree Tiger Reserve. The sanctuary is located in the Karauli District of Rajasthan and falls within the Karauli and Sapotra blocks. It spread over a total area of 674 sq. km. and is bounded on the west by the river Banas and on the south by the river Chambal. It is stated that it was declared as a Wildlife sanctuary in the year 1983 by the Government of 3 O.A. No.229/2024(CZ) Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Rajasthan vide notification dated 19.07.1983 and consists of various forest blocks and is a protected forest. The Sanctuary is named after the Kaila Devi Temple which is located within its boundaries. It is stated that it is a home to variety of wildlife species including wild boars, Leopard, Caracal, Indian Wolf, Jackal, Sloth Bear, Hyena, Chinkara, Sambhar, Spotted Deer, Wild Pigs, Fox etc. and also Tiger, acting as sink habitat for Tiger that are moving out of Ranthambhore National Park. It is stated that lot of Tigers from Ranthambore are moving to Kaila Devi Sanctuary and from Kuno National Park too as it shares boundaries with Madhya Pradesh vide Chambal river. It is further stated that the topography of the Sanctuary is hilly with the Banas River flowing through it and the vegetation in the sanctuary is mainly dry deciduous forest which consists of trees like Khair, Dhok and Tendu and is famous for its rich flora which includes medicinal plants, shrubs and trees. It is stated that Kailadevi Wildlife Sanctuary, otherwise a little known Protected Area, has become a popular reference among environmentalists and conservationists for the community-initiated forest protection committees (referred to as kulhadi bandh panchayats) that are operational in the area. These forest protection committees prevent the carrying of axes into the forests, a symbol of protecting the forests. Following these initiatives there have been several measures by the Forest Department to collaborate with the people. It is further stated that due to this prevailing ancient interference between the community and the forest, the Applicant and the members of his community are still concerned about the forest and the sanctuary which is home to majorly tigers and extensive flora and fauna. Ranthambore National Park and its extended part Kaila Devi Sanctuary is located in one of the oldest mountain ranges of India, the Aravalli range. 4 O.A. No.229/2024(CZ) Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
5. It is further argued that there already exists a building of Tehsil office in Tehsil Mandrayal which is about 4-5 km. away from its new construction but due to some political reasons and bureaucratic pressures, it is being shifted from one appropriate place to a sensitive place which is a Buffer Zone of a protected forest and on a land which is registered as 'Gair Mumkin Pahad'. It is stated that on 18.05.2020, the Tehsildar vide letter No.470 applied for allotment of land from Khasra No.1/1 for constructing new building of Tehsil office at Village-Nayagao and within a month's time, the Collector on 11.06.2020 allotted the said land to the Tehsil office for its new construction adjacent to a protected forest (around 22m from forest boundary). It is stated that on 19.08.2020, the Sub-Divisional Officer informed the Collector that the Tehsildar applied for allotment of Land from Khasra No.1/13 for its residential building which was allotted within 6 days ignoring the Buffer Zone and without putting any condition with respect to the approval from Forest Department, the State Government approved the allotment and cancelled the Gair Mumkin Pahad land type and allotted the land to Revenue Department. Therefore, the said allotment of land is arbitrary and without any scrutiny and haphazardly allotted against the policies of Government and environment. It is further stated that on 13.07.2021, the Additional Chief Secretary of Rajasthan Government sought proposal for allotment of land for construction of Guest House (Daak Bangla) based on a representation made by Respondent No.12 to the Panchayati Samiti. It is stated that thereafter on 22.07.2021, the Tehsildar applied for allotment of land from Khasra No.1/13 for construction of Guest House (Daak Bangla) which was already allotted to Panchayati Samiti. Thereafter, on 12.10.2021 the District Collector allotted land from Khasra No.1/13 which was registered as Gair Mumkin Pahad to Public Works Department for construction of 5 O.A. No.229/2024(CZ) Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Guest House. It is also stated that there are various commercial shops within a distance of 200 m from the protected forest land (Khasra No. 1/11) which are constructed on a Patta land (Khasra No.349/1) allocated by the Respondent No.7 (Gram Panchayat) and interestingly these Pattas were part of Khasra 1/1 which was a Gair Mumkin Pahad and allotted by the District Collector vide order dated 23.11.2020 to the Gram Panchayat on a condition that such land shall be allotted only to below the poverty line people and poor people but these lands have been allocated to commercial shops against the third condition of the allotment order and adjacent to the protected forest. Moreover, these shops are also constructed on land bearing Khasra No.11 which is a pasture grazing land and such land cannot be used for commercial purposes but allotment and construction has been done against the settled principles. These shops have not yet started their operations but are on the verge to start the same and the owners cannot be recognized and traced by the Applicant after all due diligence hence were not made party to this Original Application. It is further stated that the Respondent No.8 to Respondent No. 11 constructed the permanent structures within 30 meters from the protected forest boundary without any permission from the Respondent No.3 which is utter violation of the draft submitted by the Rajasthan Government to the Ministry of Forest and Environment for notifying Ranthambore Tiger Reserve as Eco Sensitive Zone and its extended part - Kaila Devi Sanctuary wherein Khasra No. 1/11, the forest land is situated in its Nidar Forest blocks. The Respondent No. 9 has its Tehsil office residence at Khasra No. 353/350 and office block at 359/356 which were before Gair Mukin Pahad bearing Khasra No. 1/1, whereas Respondent No.10 has its Panchayati Samiti office at Khasra No. 352/1 which is almost inside the protected forest and Guest House registered in the name of 6 O.A. No.229/2024(CZ) Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Respondent No. 8 is part of it at Khasra No. 351/1. It is also stated that alongwith the permanent structure of Respondent No. 8 to Respondent No. 11 and commercial shops, there is also residence of Respondent No. 12- former Member of Legislature Assembly, Rajasthan situated within 200 m from the protected forest boundary.
6. Further submissions of the learned counsel for the Applicant are that the construction of any Government office or residence does not specifically fall within the categories prohibited, regulated and permitted as mentioned in the aforementioned guidelines but any type of activity in and around the Eco-Sensitive Zone which is capable of causing pollution (air, water or noise) and having potential of damage to the fragile ecology like - ground water depletion or use of resources like - felling of trees should be regulated and needs to be supervised from time to time.
7. Submission of the learned counsel for the Respondents are that the area/plot number is Gair Mumkin Pahar and the District Administration has recommended for construction of the Tehsil office and it was sent to the Collector which was approved and necessary permissions from the State has been taken. The Collector in accordance with the provisions contained in Rajasthan Land Revenue Regulations, 1963, permitted the allotment of the land and the State Government vide notification and order 10.01.2022 approved the allotment and construction of the Tehsil Headquarter. The learned counsel for the Respondents has further submitted that the area has not been notified as Eco-Sensitive Zone and simply a proposal was sent to the Government vide letter dated 31.03.2011 which is still pending.
8. Submissions and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.3, 4, 5 and 9 are that the commercial shops are situated approximately 200 meters from the newly constructed Tehsil Office, while 7 O.A. No.229/2024(CZ) Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
the boundary of the Tehsil Office lies within a radius of 22meters. The newly constructed Tehsil Office has been built on land belonging to the Revenue Department, specifically on the land of Tehsil Mandrayal, recorded under Khasra No. 1/1 (New Khasra No. 0.353/350, Area: 0.5690 Hectares), with a total area of 6.08 Bighas classified as Gair Mumkin Pahar. For this construction, 1.10 Bighas of land were cleared and allocated under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Unavailable Government Land to Schools, Colleges, Hospitals, and Dharamshalas, etc.) Rules, 1963. It is stated that the Kailadevi Sanctuary, notified as a protected area by the Notification dated 19.07.1983, is situated in the Karauli District of Rajasthan and spans an area of 800 square kilometers. It is bordered by the Banas River to the west and the Chambal River to the south. Nearly half of its western boundary adjoins the protected area of Sawai Madhopur District, which has been notified as the Ranthambhore Tiger Reserve (RTR) through the Notification dated 08.12.2007. The Kailadevi Sanctuary forms part of the Critical Tiger Habitat (CTH) of both the Ranthambhore Tiger Reserve (RTR) and the Dholpur-Karauli Tiger Reserve (DKTR) and also includes a segment of the National Chambal Sanctuary. The Deputy Conservator of Forests and Deputy Field Director (First), Ranthambhore Tiger Project, Sawai Madhopur, has submitted proposals for declaring the Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) of the Ranthambhore Tiger Reserve to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), Government of India, for further action. However, the ESZ of the Ranthambhore Tiger Reserve is yet to be notified, and the matter remains pending with the MoEFCC. The proposal indicates that the area mentioned in the petition falls within the jurisdiction of the proposed ESZ of the Ranthambhore Tiger Reserve. Additionally, the eastern part of the Kailadevi Sanctuary has been notified 8 O.A. No.229/2024(CZ) Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
as the Critical Tiger Habitat (CTH) of the Dholpur- Karauli Tiger Reserve (DKTR) by the Notification dated 06.10.2023. The process of determining the buffer zone for the Dholpur-Karauli. Tiger Reserve is ongoing, and the proposal for its Eco-Sensitive Zone will be processed following the notification of the buffer zone. It is also stated that that Khasra No. 1/11, covering an area of 51.281 hectares, is registered as Gair Mumkin Pahar and is under the ownership of the Forest Department. There is no illegal construction within the boundaries of the forest. Proposals for the declaration of the Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) of the Ranthambhore Tiger Reserve have been submitted by the office of the Deputy Conservator of Forests and Deputy Field Director (First), Ranthambhore Tiger Project, Sawai Madhopur, to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), Government of India, for necessary action. However, the ESZ of the Ranthambhore Tiger Reserve is yet to be officially declared and remains under consideration by the MoEFCC. The submitted proposal indicates that the area mentioned in the petition falls within the jurisdiction of the proposed ESZ of the Ranthambhore Tiger Reserve. It is also stated that that the old Tehsil building still exists but is currently in a dilapidated and unsafe condition. It is entirely unsuitable for conducting official work. During the rainy season, the building becomes completely waterlogged, causing electrical currents to seep into the walls, making it hazardous for employees to occupy the premises. This poses a significant risk to life and property. Furthermore, the land records of the Tehsil have sustained damage due to persistent water logging in the old building. It is stated that on the request of the Tehsildar Mandrayal, the recommendation of the Sub-Divisional Officer Mandrayal, and the approval of the Revenue Department, Rajasthan, the District Collector of Karauli has allotted 2 Bighas and 5 Biswas of land for the Tehsil Office in 9 O.A. No.229/2024(CZ) Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Mandrayal. The land is situated in Khasra No.1/1of Village Nayagaon (New Khasra No. 0.353/350, area 0.5690hectares) out of a total of 6.08 Bighas. The District Collector, Karauli, adhered to all relevant procedures and rules during this process. It is also true that the newly constructed buildings are located at a distance of 22 meters from the boundary walls of the Forest Department. It is also stated that that on the request of the Tehsildar Mandrayal, the recommendation of the Sub-Divisional Officer Mandrayal, and the approval of the Revenue Department, Rajasthan, the District Collector of Karauli has allotted land for the residence of the Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar in Village Nayagaon, Khasra No. 1/1, with a total area of 6.08 Bighas. Out of this, 1 Bigha and 10 Biswas of land have been allotted, following all prescribed procedures and rules.
9. It is further argued that as per the proposal of the Tehsildar Mandrayal, the demand of the Public Works Department (PWD) and the Sub-Division Mandrayal, and the request of the Sub-Divisional Officer Mandrayal, the District Collector of Karauli has allotted land for the construction of a Dak Bungalow (PWD) in Khasra No. 1/13of Village Nayagaon (New Khasra No. 0.351/1, area 1.0370 hectares), classified as Gair Mumkin Pahar. Out of this, 0.25 hectares have been allocated to the Public Works Department for the Dak Bungalow, drawn from the total allotment intended for the construction of the Panchayat Samiti Mandrayal office building and residential quarters. It is also true that at a distance of 100 meters from the Forest Department's boundary wall, pucca constructions in the form of shops have been made on immovable population land. These structures are not currently in commercial use. The guidelines for the Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) classify activities into three categories: Prohibited, Regulated, and Permitted. The District Collector serves as the Chairperson of the ESZ 10 O.A. No.229/2024(CZ) Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Monitoring Committee, which is responsible for determining the categorization and regulation of activities within the ESZ.
10. It is further argued that the land allotment and land mutation for the said construction have been carried out by the District Collector, Karauli, in accordance with the rules and guidelines of the Revenue Department of the State Government. It is further stated that if anyone is aggrieved by the allotment of the land, they may approach to the appropriate forum by filing the appeal or revision against the said order of the Collector.
11. Learned counsel for the Respondents has further submitted that vide letter dated 04.10.2024 the State Government has further revised the proposal and sent to the competent authority for consideration. In the proposal the maximum extent of boundary has been given as 1 (one) kilometer. Further submissions of the learned counsel for the Respondents are that the Tehsil Headquarter is situated in the Nayagaon while the north boundary as attached with Annexure-II does not include the Nayagaon which is at a distance of Mandariyal Karauli and since the Mandrayal Karauli has been shown, thus the Applicant by means of including the Mandariyal Karauli Tehsil has argued and written in the application that it is within Eco-Sensitive Zone.
12. By means of filing the I.A. No.149/2024, the Applicant has submitted that the building was already constructed and the Respondents were shifting and application has been moved not to shift the operation of the Tehsil Headquarter.
13. In response to the above contention, the learned counsel for the Respondents has submitted that it is in operation and since Eco-Sensitive Zone has not been notified and the area does not fall within the Eco- Sensitive Zone, thus the application as filed is not maintainable. 11 O.A. No.229/2024(CZ) Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
14. Another prayer of the Applicant is that a direction be issued to the Respondents to pursue the draft notification for finalization.
15. In reply thereof, the learned counsel for the Respondents Mr. Shoeb H. Khan submitted that the draft proposal for the Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) of the Ranthambhore Tiger Reserve, forwarded to the Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change, Government of India, by the State Government via letter No. F. No. 1(71) Forest/RTR/2002 Part dated 4/10/2024, in Para 7 under the heading "List of activities prohibited or to be regulated within the Eco-sensitive Zone" explicitly provides that infrastructure, including civic amenities, shall be developed with appropriate mitigation measures in compliance with applicable laws, rules, regulations, and guidelines. The construction of the Tehsil office falls within this regulatory framework and aligns with the permissible activities outlined in the draft ESZ notification. It is stated that the land for the construction of the Tehsil office was duly allotted by the District Collector, Karauli, under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Unavailable Government Land to Schools, Colleges, Hospitals, and Dharamshalas, etc.) Rules, 1963. This allotment followed all prescribed rules and procedures of the Revenue Department, with the necessary approvals obtained at each stage. The constructed building is situated entirely on revenue land, specifically on land categorized as "Gair Mumkin Pahar," and is located approximately 22 meters from the boundary of the Forest Department. It is stated that the primary purpose of declaring Eco- Sensitive Zones around Protected Areas, as outlined in the guidelines dated February 9, 2011, issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change, is to function as "shock absorbers" for protected areas. These guidelines emphasize regulation rather than prohibition of activities within Eco-Sensitive Zones, except where expressly required. The 12 O.A. No.229/2024(CZ) Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Tehsil office, as a civic amenity, qualifies as a regulated activity under the proposed ESZ notification and is, therefore, permissible under the existing regulatory framework. This construction ensures administrative efficiency and improved governance, which are critical for public welfare. It is further stated that the old Tehsil office was in a hazardous and dilapidated condition, rendering it unsafe for both employees and the general public. During the rainy season, the premises became waterlogged, with electrical currents seeping into the walls, creating a risk to life and property. Furthermore, valuable land records stored in the old office were at risk of damage due to these adverse conditions. The construction of the new Tehsil office was, therefore, a necessary step to ensure the safety of personnel and property and to facilitate the smooth functioning of administrative work and that the construction of the new Tehsil office was undertaken with appropriate mitigation measures to minimize any potential environmental impact. The location of the Tehsil office near the existing Mandrayal-Karanpur highway ensures accessibility for residents while avoiding disruption to wildlife or vegetation. The respondents submit that the construction has been executed in strict adherence to environmental safeguards.
16. The Government of Rajasthan vide Revenue (Group-6) Department order/notification dated 20.07.1963 has regulated the conditions for allotment of land for the construction of schools, colleges, dispensaries and other building utility which provides as follows:-
"1. Class of land to be allotted. (1) Any unoccupied Government land except land recorded as Johad Paitan and beds of river or tank, may be allotted for any of the purposes mentioned in clause (2), if the allotting authority is satisfied that no suitable un-culturable land is available:
Provided that if land recorded as pasture (Gochar) is to be allotted the procedure of consultation with panchayat as laid down in rule 7 of the 13 O.A. No.229/2024(CZ) Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Rajasthan Tenancy (Govt) Rules 1955 framed under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Act 3 of 1955) shall he followed: Provided further that land which are irrigated by any source or are recorded as public path, pasture, oran, ghair mumkin pahad shall not be allotted without the prior approval of the State Government. Provided also that no allotment shall be made without prior consultation of town planning department in case of cities and town for which Master Plan has been approved or is under preparation.
"(2)(i) बारानी अथवा बंजर भूमि, आवंटन के मिए उपिब्ध न होने की दशा िें, किक्टर म चं ित भूमि आवंटटत कर केगा।
(ii) यटद रकारी भवन (ग्राि पंिायत व रकारी ववघािय टहत) ननिााण हे तु अन्य कोई उपयुक्त भूमि उपिब्ध न हो तो, ंभागीय आयुक्त इ प्रयोजन हे तु अन्य भूमि को अनुपिब्धता का अंकन करते हुए जोहड पायतन को भूमि आवंटटत कर केंगे।"
17. Provision 2 of the said notification provides the construction of Panchayat Ghar, Public Utility Building, Government Office Building and other buildings for which the Collector, Commissioner and the State Government has been notified as an allotting authority and in the present matter the Collector/State has made the allotment according to rules and the said allotment order has not been challenged before any appropriate forum by anyone aggrieved.
18. Mr. Sachin K. Verma, learned counsel has put in appearance for Private Respondent No.12, namely, Ramesh Chand Meena, and argued that the Applicant Rajendra Singh alias Raju Singh itself is an encroacher who illegally encroached upon 15 Bighas of the agricultural land. The Respondent No. 12 in the Year 2022 being the then member of the Legislative Assembly, at the relevant time after receiving the complaint from the victim farmer with regard to the encroachment upon the land belonging to the victim by the Applicant has forwarded the complaint to the concerned authority for taking appropriate legal action against the applicant Rajendra Singh alias Raju Singh, consequently the concerned 14 O.A. No.229/2024(CZ) Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
authority after following the due process of law had removed the illegal encroachment of the Applicant. It is stated that total six villages come within Gram Panchayat Mongepura i.e. Nayagoan, Khirkan, Jagadpura, Mongepura, Jagadarpura, Tatu ki Dangariya, amongst all the villages are part of Gram Panchayat Mongepura only one village Mongepura is enlisted in the proposed to be notified 174 villages falling within the Eco-Sensitive Zone not the entire Gram Panchayat Mongepura. The Applicant is trying to mislead this Tribunal by using the word Gram Panchayat Mongepura which is having six different villages in its official territory of Gram Panchayat, the alleged subjective construction mentioned in the present Original Application is in Village Nayagao which is nowhere enlisted or categorized in the proposed to be notified 174 villages falling within the Eco-Sensitive Zone thus the provisions of the Eco-Sensitive Zone is not applicable to the constructions in Village Nayagaon. Moreover, the draft proposal of the ESZ of the Ranthambhore Tiger Reserve which is forwarded to the Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change, Government of India, categorically mentions about the Regulated Activities as "Infrastructure including civic amenities shall be done with mitigation measures, as per applicable laws, rules and regulations and available guidelines" thus the alleged constructions mentioned in the instant original application comes within the domain of the regulated activities and moreover the alleged constructions have been carried out with strict adherence to the prescribed rules and regulations. As regulated activities civic amenities like Government High Secondary School Mongepura, office of XEN PWD Mongepura, and Government College Mandayal, Mongepura are constructed at Village Mongepura itself. It is further clarified that the subjective construction site is not within village Mongepura it is at village Nayagaon. It is stated that the Respondent No.12 was the Cabinet 15 O.A. No.229/2024(CZ) Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Minister, Member of Legislative Assembly, State Government of Rajasthan, during the year 2019-2023 and during his tenure as a public representative the Tehsil Office Mandrayal, Panchayat Samiti Mandrayal and Dak Bungalow/Rest House (PWD) have been constructed with strict adherence to the rules and regulations. It is stated that the Respondent No.12 being the public representative as an MLA in his official capacity had expedited the process which was in the pipeline, moreover at the relevant time being the duly elected Member of the Legislative Assembly cum Cabinet Minister the Respondent No.12 discharged its noble duty to expedite all the developmental projects and proposals, pending for approvals. It is stated that the old Tehsil Office building is in dilapidated conditions and unsuitable for conducting official work. During the rainy season, the building becomes completely waterlogged, causing electric current leak to seep into the walls, making it hazardous for employees to occupy the premises posing significant risk to the life. It is submitted that on the request of the Tehsildar Mandrayal and under the recommendations of the Sub-Division 1 Officer Mandrayal, and also after the prior approval of the Revenue Department, Rajasthan, the District Collector of Karauli has allotted 2 Bighas and 5 Biswa of land situated in Khasra No.1/1 of Village Nayagaon (New Khasra No. 0.353/350, area 0.5690 hectares) out of a total of 6.08 Bighas for the construction of Tehsil Office in Mandrayal.
19. The Rajasthan State PCB was directed to submit the reply on the points as raised by the learned counsel for the Applicant and the learned counsel Mr. Rohit Sharma has submitted the reply point-wise as follows:-
"i. On the Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) and Critical Tiger Habitat (CTH):16
O.A. No.229/2024(CZ) Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
The Deputy Conservator of Forests and Deputy Field Director (First) , Ranthambhore Tiger Project, Sawai Madhopur, has submitted proposals for declaring the Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) of the Ranthambhore Tiger Reserve to the Ministry Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), Government of India, for further action. However, the ESZ of the Ranthanbhore Tiger Reserve is yet to be notified and the matter remains pending with the MoEFCC.
Additionally, the eastern part of the Kailadevi Sanctuary has been notified as the Critical Tiger Habitat (CTH) of the Dholpur-Karauli Tiger Reserve (DKTR) by the Notification dated 06.10.2023. The process of determining the buffer zone for the Dholpur-Karauli Tiger Reserve is ongoing, and the proposal for its Eco-Sensitive Zone will be processed following the notification of the buffer zone."
ii. On the status of land and constructions near the sanctuary:
Khasra No.1/11, covering an area of 51.281 hectares, is registered as Gair Mumkin Pahar and is under the ownership of the Forest There is no illegal construction Department within the boundaries of the forest.
iii. - On the impact of construction on the environment:
The construction of the government office has had environment, no negative impact or on the noise including air, water, pollution. On the contrary, the newly constructed buildings will significantly contribute to public welfare.
iv. On permission requirements from the Forest Department: "No construction has been done on the land of the Forest Department. Hence, no prior permission or permission Department is required."
20. It is further argued that the facts as narrated in the present application fall within domain of the Forest Department and District Administration and if the Applicant is aggrieved by the order of the allotment or shifting of the Tehsil Headquarter or the construction of Tehsil Headquarter, he may approach before the appropriate forum/revisional authority/appellate authority against the order of the Collector for the allotment of the land and necessary remedy may be obtained according to rules. The Sanctuary has not still been notified and thus, the application is without any merits and is premature.
17 O.A. No.229/2024(CZ) Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
21. Learned counsel for the Applicant has moved another I.A. No.52/2025 under Section 26 read with Section 28 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, for non-compliance of the order dated 19.12.2024 and the order as quoted is with reference to the reply for which the learned counsel for the State has sought a short time for filing the objection after calling a report from the District Headquarter/Respondents and on that occasion, in view of the circumstances, an ex-parte order was passed to maintain the status quo. The learned counsel for the Applicant has relied on 2005 (1) MH.L.J (Govinda Vs. Sadhu) and 2002 SCC Online ALL 797, in which it has been directed that interim order should be complied with.
22. The CPC procedure which has been discussed in this application, requires that any interim order passed by any Court should be disposed of within 30 (thirty) days and this order was passed at the time when reply was not filed by the Respondents and it was the interim measurement. After that reply has been filed and the Tribunal has heard both the counsel. Accordingly, we have to proceed according to merits. Thus, the above citation, with all respect, is not applicable on the cases which are being decided on merits after hearing both the parties. Though, the learned counsel for the Respondents has submitted that the interim order was not extended further for the reasons that the reply has been filed and the Sanctuary has not been notified. The very basis of notification is the sine qua non for the proceedings of this case which is still pending and non- notified.
23. Further arguments as advanced by the learned counsel for the Applicant are that the Respondent/State Government/Central Government should be directed to decide the matter of Eco-Sensitive Zone and directions be issued to the District Administration not to construct the Tehsil Office or to demolish it or the policy matter which are required to be considered by 18 O.A. No.229/2024(CZ) Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
the State Government. It is within the domain of the State Government/Central Government/Forest Department as a matter of policy. The Administrative decisions which have been taken by the State Government, are required to be taken by the State Government and should not be interfered with unless and until it is proved by the cogent evidence and report of any Expert Committee that there is any violation of law or damage to the environment and the laws on the point are as follows:-
(i) In 2011 (1) SCC 640 (Bajaj Hindustan limited Vs. Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Limited and Anr.), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:
39. We should not be understood to have meant that the judiciary should never interfere with administrative decisions.
However, such interference should be only within narrow limits e.g., when there is clear violation of the statute or a constitutional provision, or there is arbitrariness in the Wednesbury sense. It is the administrators and legislators who are entitled to frame politics and take such administrative decisions as they think necessary in the public interest. The Court should not ordinarily interfere with policy decisions, unless clearly illegal.
24. When there is no violation of the provisions of the statute or of a constitutional provision or in the absence of arbitrariness, the Court should not interfere with the administrative decisions. It is the administrators and 8 legislature, who are entitled to frame policy and entitled to take decisions as they think necessary in the public interest.
25. It is settled position that the Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the policy decisions unless they are clearly illegal or unconstitutional. The Court can invalidate an executive policy only when it is clearly violative of some provisions of the statute or Constitution or is shockingly arbitrary but not otherwise." 19 O.A. No.229/2024(CZ) Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(ii) In the case of Km. Shrilekha Vidyarthi (supra) the Apex Court has held that Article 14 of the Constitution of India applies also to matters of governmental policy and if the policy or any action of the Government, even in contractual matters, fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness it would be unconstitutional.
(iii) In the case of Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v. Delhi Administrative and Ors.
MANU/SC/0189/2001 : (2001) 3 SCC 635, the Apex Court has held as follows:
18. ...It is well settled that the Courts, in exercise of their power of judicial review, do not ordinarily interfere with the policy decisions of the executive unless the policy can be faulted on grounds of mala fide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness etc. Indeed, arbitrariness, irrationality, perversity and mala fide will render the policy unconstitutional. However, if the policy cannot be faulted on any of these grounds, the mere fact that it would hurt business interests of a party, does not justify invalidating the policy.
26. In the aforesaid paragraph the Apex Court has further held that the Courts are not expected to express their opinion as to whether at a particular point of time or in a particular situation any such policy should have been adopted or not. It is best left to the discretion of the State.
(iv) In the case of Ms. Aruna Roy and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (2002) 7 SCC 368, the Apex Court has held as follows:
96. ...It is ultimately for Parliament to take a decision on the National Education Policy one way or the other. It is not the province of the Court to decide on the good or bad points of an education policy. The Court's limited jurisdiction to intervene in implementation of a policy is only if it is found to be against any statute or the Constitution. It has further held in paragraph 97 of said Report as follows:
It cannot, however, compel that a particular practice or tradition followed in framing and implementing the policy, must be adhered to. The Court has to keep in mind the above limitations on its jurisdiction and power. It is true that if a policy framed in the field of education or other fields runs counter to the constitutional 20 O.A. No.229/2024(CZ) Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
provisions or the philosophy behind those provisions, this Court must, as part of its constitution duty, interdict such policy.
28. In the case of Union of India and Anr. v. International Trading Co. and Anr. MANU/SC/0392/2003 : (2003) 5 SCC 437 the Apex Court has held as follows:
15. While the discretion to change the policy in exercise of the executive power, when not trammeled by any statute or rule is wide enough, what is imperative and implicit in terms of Article 14 is that a change in policy must be made fairly and should not give impression that it was so done arbitrarily on by any ulterior criteria. The wide sweep of Article 14 and the requirement of every State action qualifying for its validity on this touchstone irrespective of the field of activity of the State is an accepted tenet.
The basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the state, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heart beat of fair play. Actions are amenable, in the panorama of judicial review only to the extent that the State must act validly for a discernible reasons, not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. The meaning and true import and concept of arbitrariness is more easily visualized than precisely defined. A question whether the impugned action is arbitrary or not is to be ultimately answered on the facts and circumstances of a given case. A basic and obvious test to apply in such cases is to see whether there is any discernible principle emerging from the impugned action and if so, does it really satisfy the test of reasonableness.
(v) In the case of Delhi Development Authority and Anr. v. Joint Action Committee, Allottee of SFS Flats and Ors. MANU/SC/0202/2008 : (2008) 2 SCC 672, the Apex Court has held as follows:
64. An executive order termed as a policy decision is not beyond the pale of judicial review. Whereas the superior courts may not interfere with the nitty gritties of the policy, or substitute one by the other but it will not be correct to contend that the court shall like its judicial hands off, when a plea is raised that the impugned decision is a policy decision. Interference therewith on the part of the superior court would not be without jurisdiction as it is subject to judicial review.
65. Broadly, a policy decision is subject to judicial review on the following grounds:21
O.A. No.229/2024(CZ) Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(a) if it is unconstitutional;
(b) if it is dehors the provisions of the Act and the Regulations;
(c) if the delegate has acted beyond its power of delegation;
(d) if the executive policy is contrary to the statutory or a larger policy.
(vi) In the case of Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam v. Union of India and Ors. MANU/SC/0811/2009 : (2009) 7 SCC 561, the Apex Court has held as follows:
168. In a democracy, it is the prerogative of each elected Government to follow its own policy. Often a change in Government may result in the shift in focus or change in economic policies. Any such change may result in adversely affecting some vested interests. Unless any illegality is committed in the execution of the policy or the same is contrary to law or malafide, a decision bringing about change cannot per se be interfered with by the court.
169. It is neither within the domain of the courts nor the scope of judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise or whether better public policy can be evolved. Nor are the courts inclined to strike down a policy at the behest of a Petitioner merely because it has been urged that a different policy would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or more logical. Wisdom and advisability of economic policy are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review. In matters relating to economic issues the Government has, while taking a decision, right to "trial and error" as long as both trial and error are bona fide and within the limits of the authority. For testing the correctness of a policy, the appropriate forum is Parliament and not the courts.From the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court, it is clear that a Court can interfere in a policy decision of the Parliament/State Legislatures/Governments if any of the following conditions exist:(I) If the policy fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness, it would be unconstitutional.(II) The change in policy must be made fairly and should not give impression that it was so done arbitrarily on any ulterior intention.(III) The policy can be faulted on grounds of mala fide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness etc.(IV) If the policy is found to be against any statute or the Constitution or runs counter to the philosophy behind these provisions.(V) It is dehors the provisions of the Act or 22 O.A. No.229/2024(CZ) Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Legislations.(VI) If the delegatee has acted beyond its power of delegation."
(vii) The rule can also be challenged if it is beyond its limits permissible under the principal Act and it must be in good faith and in the public interest. In the case of State of U.P. and others v. Renusagar Power Co. and others, MANU/SC/0505/1988 : (1988) 4 SCC 59, the Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"79. If the exercise of power is in the nature of subordinate legislation the exercise must conform to the provisions of the statute. All the conditions of the statute must be fulfilled...."
48. A subordinate legislation can be declared ultra vires if it is found that the rule challenged is not within the scope of authority conferred on the rule maker by the parent Act. The Court cannot examine the wisdom or officiousness of the rules. It cannot consider the merit or demerit of a policy of the State. It is well- settled law that delegatee cannot frame a rule which is not authorized by the parent statute. If the rule has not been framed within the powers delegated by the parent Act and if it is beyond the said power, only in those cases the Court can declare it ultra vires.
49. De. Smith in his book in 'Principles of Judicial Review', 1999 Edition, at page 95 has observed as under:
"In essence, the doctrine of ultra vires permits the Courts to strike down decisions made by bodies exercising public functions which they have no power to make. Acting ultra vires and acting without jurisdiction have essentially the same meaning, although in general the term "vires" has been employed when considering administrative decisions and subordinate legislative orders, and "jurisdiction" when considering judicial decisions, or those having a judicial flavour."
Sir William Wade and Christopher Forsyth in their book on 'Administrative Law', Eighth Edition, at page 35, has defined the ultra vires in the following terms:
"The simple proposition that a public authority may not act outside its powers (ultra vires) might fitly be called the central principle of administrative law. The juristic basis of judicial review is the doctrine of ultra vires. To a large extent the Courts have developed the subject by extending the refining this principle, which has 23 O.A. No.229/2024(CZ) Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
many ramifications and which in some of its aspects attains a high degree of artificiality."
In the case of P. Krishnamurthy (supra) the Supreme Court has culled out the following principles:
"15. There is a presumption in favour of constitutionality or validity of a subordinate legislation and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that it is invalid. It is also well recognized that a subordinate legislation can be challenged under any of the following grounds:
(a) Lack of legislative competence to make the subordinate legislation.
(b) Violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
(c) Violation of any provision of the Constitution of India.
(d) Failure to conform to the statute under which it is made or exceeding the limits of authority conferred by the enabling Act.
(e) Repugnancy to the laws of the land, that is, any enactment.
(f) Manifest arbitrariness/unreasonableness (to an extent where Court might well say that the legislature never intended to give authority to make such Rules)."
(viii) In exercise of power of judicial review, the Courts do not ordinarily interfere with the policy decisions of the executive unless the policy can be faulted on the ground of mala fide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness etc. Indeed arbitrariness, irrationality, perversity and mala fide, render the policy unconstitutional. Unless a policy decision is demonstrably capricious or arbitrary and not informed by any reason or discriminatory or infringing any Statute or the Constitution, it cannot be a subject of judicial interference. However, if the policy cannot be touched on any of these grounds, the mere fact that it may affect business interests of a party does not justify invalidating the policy. (Vide M/s. Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. Vs. Delhi Administration & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 1447; State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Padam Dev & Ors., (2002) 4 SCC 510; Balco Employees' Union (Regd) Vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2002 SC 350; State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Lata Arun AIR 2002 SC 2642; and Federation of Railway Officers Association Vs. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 289).
(ix) In Union of India & Anr. Vs. International Trading Company & Anr. (2003) 5 SCC 437, the Supreme Court pointed out that the Policy of the Government, even in contractual matters, must satisfy the test of reasonableness and 24 O.A. No.229/2024(CZ) Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
every State action must be informed by reason. Article 14 of the Constitution applies also to matters of governmental policy and if the policy or any action of the Government, even in contractual matters, fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness, it would be unconstitutional. The Court further held as under:-
"15. While the discretion to change the policy in exercise of the executive power, when not trammelled by any statute or rule is wide enough, what is imperative and implicit in terms of Article 14 is that a change in policy must be made fairly and should not give the impression that it was so done arbitrarily or by any ulterior criteria. The wide sweep of Article 14 and the requirement of every State action qualifying for its validity on this touchstone irrespective of the field of activity of the State is an accepted tenet. The basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair play. Actions are amenable, in the panorama of judicial review only to the extent that the State must act validly for a discernible reason, not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. The meaning and true import and concept of arbitrariness is more easily visualized than precisely defined. A question whether the impugned action is arbitrary or not is to be ultimately answered on the facts and circumstances of a given case. A basic and obvious test to apply in such cases is to see whether there is any discernible principle emerging from the impugned action and if so, does it really satisfy the test of reasonableness.
16. Where a particular mode is prescribed for doing an act and there is no impediment in adopting the procedure, the deviation to act in a different manner which does not disclose any discernible principle which is reasonable itself shall be labeled as arbitrary. Every State action must be informed by reason and it follows that an act uninformed by reason is per se arbitrary." (Emphasis added).
(x) In Union of India Vs. Dinesh Engineering Corpn. & Anr. (2001) 8 SCC 491 the Supreme Court observed as follows:-
".........Where the decision of the authority is in regard to a policy matter, this Court will not ordinarily interfere since these policy 25 O.A. No.229/2024(CZ) Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
matters are taken based on expert knowledge of the persons concerned and courts are normally not equipped to question the correctness of a policy decision. But then this does not mean that the courts have to abdicate their right to scrutinise whether the policy in question is formulated keeping in mind all the relevant facts and the said policy can be held to be beyond the pale of discrimination or unreasonableness, bearing in mind the material on record.......... . Any decision, be it a simple administrative decision or a policy decision, if taken without considering the relevant facts, can only be termed as an arbitrary decision. If it is so, then be it a policy decision or otherwise, it will be violative of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution."
(xi) In Krishnan Kakkanth Vs. Govt. of Kerala, AIR 1997 SC 128; the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the judicial review of policy decision is permissible in exceptional circumstances only when the Court is of the view that the order suffers from arbitrariness and unreasonableness. The Court observed as under:-
"To ascertain unreasonableness and arbitrariness in the context of Article 14 of the Constitution, it is not necessary to enter upon any exercise for finding out the wisdom in the policy decision of the State Government. It is immaterial if a better or more comprehensive policy decision could have been taken. It is equally immaterial if it can be demonstrated that the policy decision is unwise and is likely to defeat the purpose for which such decision has been taken. Unless the policy decision is demonstrably capricious or arbitrary and not informed by any reason whatsoever or it suffers from the vice of discrimination or infringes any statute or provisions of the Constitution, the policy decision cannot be struck down. It should be borne in mind that except for the limited purpose of testing a public policy in the context of illegality and unconstitutionality, Court should avoid embarking on uncharted ocean of public policy."
(xii) It is to be noted that the right of the people to live in healthy environment with minimum disturbance of ecological balance and without avoidable hazard to them and to their cattle, homes and agriculture land and undue affectation of air, water and environment. It is for the Government of the nation and not for 26 O.A. No.229/2024(CZ) Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
the Court to decide whether the deposits should be exploited at the cost of ecology and environmental consideration or the industrial requirement should be otherwise satisfied. It may be perhaps possible to exercise greater control and vigil over the operation and strike a balance between preservation and utilization, that would indeed be a matter for an Expert Body to examine and on the basis of appropriate advice, Government should take a policy decision and formally implement the same and for the purpose it is for the Expert Committee to examine.
(xiii) The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of N.D. Jayal & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
reported in (2004) 9 SCC 362 dealing with the matter of Tehri Dam observed as follows:
"22. Before adverting to other issues, certain aspects pertaining to the preservation of ecology and development have to be noticed. In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, and in M C Mehta v. Union of India, it was observed that the balance between environmental protection and developmental activities could only be maintained by strictly following the principle of' sustainable development.' This is a development strategy that caters the needs of the present without negotiating the ability of upcoming generations to satisfy their needs. The strict observance of sustainable development will put us on a path that ensures development while protecting the environment, a path that works for all peoples and for all generations. It is a guarantee to the present and a bequeath to the future. All environmental related developmental activities should benefit more people while maintaining the environmental balance. This could be ensured only by the strict adherence of sustainable development without which life of coming generations will be in jeopardy. 23. In a catena of cases we have reiterated that right to clean environment is a guaranteed fundamental right. May be in different context, the right to development is also declared as a component of Article 21 in cases like Samata v. State of Andhra Pradesh and in Madhu Kishore v. State of Bihar.
24. The right to development cannot be treated as a mere right to economic betterment or cannot be limited to as a misnomer to simple construction activities. The right to development 27 O.A. No.229/2024(CZ) Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
encompasses much more than economic well being, and includes within its definition the guarantee of fundamental human rights. The 'development' is not related only to the growth of GNP. In the classic work - 'Development As Freedom' the Nobel prize winner Amartya Sen pointed out that the issue of development cannot be separated from the conceptual framework of human right'. This idea is also part of the UN Declaration on the Right to Development. The right to development includes the whole spectrum of civil, cultural, economic, political and social process, for the improvement of peoples' well being and realization of their full potential. It is an integral part of human right. Of course, construction of a dam or a mega project is definitely an attempt to achieve the goal of wholesome development. Such works could very well be treated as integral component for development.
25. Therefore, the adherence of sustainable development principle is a sine qua non for the maintenance of the symbiotic balance between the rights to environment and development. Right to environment is a fundamental right. On the other hand right to development is also one. Here the right to 'sustainable development' cannot be singled out. Therefore, the concept of 'sustainable development' is to be treated an integral part of 'life' under Article 21. The weighty concepts like intergenerational equity State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ganesh Wood Products, public trust doctrine M C Mehta v. Kamal Nath, and precautionary principle (Vellore Citizens), which we declared as inseparable ingredients of our environmental jurisprudence, could only be nurtured by ensuring sustainable development.
26. To ensure sustainable development is one of the goals of Environmental Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act') and this is quiet necessary to guarantee 'right to life' under Article 21. If the Act is not armed with the powers to ensure sustainable development, it will become a barren shell. In other words, sustainable development is one of the means to achieve the object and purpose of the Act as well as the protection of 'life' under Article 21. Acknowledgment of this principle will breath new life into our environmental jurisprudence and constitutional resolve. Sustainable development could be achieved only by strict compliance of the directions under the Act. The object and purpose of the Act - "to provide for the protection and improvement of 28 O.A. No.229/2024(CZ) Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
environment" could only be achieved by ensuring the strict compliance of its directions. The concerned authorities by exercising its powers under the Act will have to ensure the acquiescence of sustainable development. Therefore, the directions or conditions put forward by the Act need to be strictly complied with. Thus the power under the Act cannot be treated as a power simpliciter, but it is a power coupled with duty. It is the duty of the State to make sure the fulfillment of conditions or direction under the Act.
Without strict compliance, right to environment under Article 21 could not be guaranteed and the purpose of the Act will also be defeated. The commitment to the conditions thereof is an obligation both under Article 21 and under the Act. The conditions glued to the environmental clearance for the Tehri Dam Project given by the Ministry of Environment vide its Order dated July 19, 1990 has to be viewed from this perspective."
(xiv) It is held in N. D. Jayal Vs. Union of India, Tehri Dam case reported in (2004) 9 SCC 418:
"137. When natural resources are exploited in a big way for big projects by State with all sincerity and good intentions for general common benefit, social conflicts arise as a natural adverse consequence. Generally the conflicts arise between marginal farmers, peasants and other landless persons who survive on natural resources and those who are better off, rich or affluent and who desire to undertake agriculture and industry. When river projects for dams are undertaken to generate electricity and improve irrigation facilities, conflicts arise between people living up-stream who have to necessarily lose their source of living and habitat and those living downstream who need water and electricity for their homes, industries and agricultural fields. When such social conflicts between different social groups i.e. up-stream population and down-stream population, between rural population and urban population, between poor surviving on natural resources and others needing natural resources for further development arise what should be the duty and priorities of the State and its authorities who have undertaken the projects? When such social conflicts arise between poor and more needy on one side and rich or affluent or less needy on the other, prior attention 29 O.A. No.229/2024(CZ) Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
has to be paid to the former group which is both financially and politically weak. Such less advantaged group is expected to be given prior attention by Welfare State like ours which is committed and obliged by the Constitution, particularly by its provisions contained in the Preamble, Fundamental rights, Fundamental duties and Directive Principles, to take care of such deprived sections of people who are likely to lose their home and source of livelihood."
24. In light of the above facts, it is left to the local authorities/State Administration/Government of India (MoEF&CC) to take a policy decision. The Applicant is at liberty to move an application before the State Administration/Government of India to decide as a matter of policy and the State Administration may take a suitable decision as a policy decision. Since the matter as raised is not within the domain of this Tribunal and if the Applicant is aggrieved by any of the order of the State, he may move an application before the appropriate forum for early disposal of the case.
25. We have also considered the relevant records and found that the old Tehsil office building was in a dilapidated condition and unsuitable for conducting the official work and the District Administration/State Administration has decided to construct or repair the building for the reasons that during the rainy season the building becomes completely water logged, causing electric current leak to seep into the walls making it hazardous for the employees to occupy the premises posing significant risk to the life and the Government records. The land was allotted in accordance with the Government rules by the competent authority. The State Government/District Administration is a statutory and constitutional body to take any policy decision and accordingly they have taken a decision according to rules and generally a Court or Tribunal should not interfere with the policy decisions of the State Administration unless and until it violates any constitutional obligations. The draft 30 O.A. No.229/2024(CZ) Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
notification which was sent in the year 2011 was again re-considered and modified which was communicated in the year 2024 and still pending before the competent authority. The State Administration/Competent Authority may take a decision according to rules and if anyone or the Applicant wants to expedite it, they may approach to the appropriate forum. Rest of the reliefs are also not maintainable.
26. In view of the above facts, the Original Application No.229/2024(CZ) is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
27. Pending I.As., if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
Sheo Kumar Singh, JM Sudhir Kumar Chaturvedi, EM 26th September, 2025, Original Application No.229/2024(CZ) (I.A. No.149/2024 & I.A. No.52/2025) AK 31 O.A. No.229/2024(CZ) Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.