National Green Tribunal
Rajendra Tiwari vs Union Of India Through The Secretary ... on 6 May, 2026
Item No.03
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
CENTRAL ZONE BENCH, BHOPAL
(THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)
Original Application No.212/2024(CZ)
Rajendra 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) : Mr. Pulkit Godha, Adv. & Mr. Ritik Jain, Adv. for
R-16,26, 30-34, 36-44
Ms. Sneha Chaturvedi, Adv. for Mr. Shubham Soni,
Adv. for R-15,46
Mr. Rohit Sharma, Adv. for RSPCB & State of
Rajasthan & Ors.
Mr. Gigi George, Adv. for CGWA
Mr. Lokendra Singh Kachhawa Adv. for R-12
ORDER
1. The case of the Applicant is that Old Khasra Nos. 4, 6 and 27 as per Van Bandobast Plan Vankhand Amer 54 Village Kachrawala alias Chokaliyawas were recorded in the name of Forest Department as Reserved Forest Land of Vankhand Amer-54 and the land of the said Khasra Nos. was notified to be Reserved Forest Land by virtue of notification dated 21.11.1961. It is stated that the Applicant obtained the Milan Khestraphal of concerned revenue record and as per the same Khasra Nos. 4, 6 and 27 got replaced by New Khasra Nos. 9, 10, 68 and 190 respectively. However, Khasra No.4 came to be divided into two parts and new Khasra Nos. are 10 and 68 at village Kachrawala.
1 O.A. No.212/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
2. It is stated that Khasra No.9 is still recorded in the name of the Forest Department in the Revenue records. It is further stated that Khasra No.10, 68 (Old Khasra No.4) are recorded in the name of some private persons and vaguely and illegally rights have been given to them upon reserved forest land of Old Khasra No.4 of Village Kachrawala and at present Khasra No.10, 68 (Old Khasra No.4) of village Kachrawala is part of Lohagarh Fort and Resort. It is also submitted that Khasra No.190 (Old Khasra No.27) is presently recorded in the name of Jaipur Development Authority. The case of the Applicant further is that the land situated in Khasra Nos. 176, 177, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 205, 196/672, 189/659, 188/660, 188/643, 187/643, 187/661, 187/642, 186/668 at village Kachrawala, Tehsil - Amer, District - Jaipur is revenue land. However, the said land was integral part of Eco Sensitive Zone of Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary and no permission has been obtained from Monitoring Committee of Eco Sensitive Zone of Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary for performance of commercial activities within the periphery of Eco Sensitive Zone.
3. The matter was taken by the Tribunal and notices were issued to the Respondent to submit the reply. Reply by the Respondent has been filed.
4. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties has perused the record.
5. Brief submissions of the learned Counsel for the Applicant are that non-
forest activities are being operated in the forest land and the Lohargarh Fort and Resort Spa-Destination Wedding Resort is functioning without due approval from the competent authorities.
6. In response to the above contention, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.15 and 46 has submitted that the mutation, identification, cancellation of lease deed or matter of allotment relates to the revenue courts and the appropriate remedy for the Applicant is to approach the concerned forum. 2 O.A. No.212/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
7. It is further submitted that Respondents resort is a heritage destination resort wherein facilities such as spa, sports etc. are also provided to ensure an extraordinary experience of modern luxury, surrounded by the beauty of nature and the enchantment of history for its customers/guests, and, as such is renowned for its world class services whilst being situated in the heartland of the rural Rajasthan. It is worthwhile to mention herein that while operating the aforesaid facilities, the Humble Answering Respondents has protected the flora and fauna of the entire area for which the Humble Answering Respondents have planted dense trees in the Lohagarh resort premises. The Respondent No. 46, namely, M/S Sinsina System Private Limited, having passed the necessary resolution in terms of the Section 21 of the Companies Act of 1956, and upon obtaining the due requisite approval from the Central Government changed its name to Lohagarh Resorts Private Limited i.e., the Humble Respondent No. 15. Therefore, in furtherance of the same the Registrar of Companies, Rajasthan issued the fresh certificate of incorporation consequent upon the aforesaid change of name on 29.04.2009 and that the entire Lohagarh Fort and Resort & Spa- Destination Wedding Resort has been constructed on the own khatedari land of the Answering Respondents. The aforesaid land was duly purchased by the Humble Answering Respondents through registered sale deed dated 19.01.2007 bearing khasra no. 187/1, khasra No. 188, khasra no. 189, khasra no. 190/662 measuring 0.48 hectares (Annexure-3) and, through the registered sale deed dated 07.11.2007 bearing khasra no. 191, khasra no. 194, khasra no. 195, khasra no. 196, khasra no. 204 total measuring 0.70 hectares of barani kism (Annexure-4). It is further submitted that the aforesaid agricultural land was already duly converted for commercial/ non- agricultural purposes vide the conversion orders dated 02.09.2006. Thereafter, the aforesaid land was mutated in the name of the Humble 3 O.A. No.212/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors. Answering Respondents which is clearly reflected as per the jamabandi of the samvat 2070-2073. (Annexure-7). It is also most respectfully submitted that the Humble Answering Respondents have also obtained land in the plot area of 4617 square meters in khasra no. 176/673, khasra no. 190 by the Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur vide the allotment order dated 17.04.2018 for yoga and mediation centre which is still vacant and no construction has been made upon this land.
8. It is further argued that the Respondents way back in 2014 more particularly, obtained the consent to operate dated 19.08.2014 (Annexure-
10) to operate a hotel under Section 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1974" for the sake of brevity) and under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1981" for the sake of brevity) from the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board. Since, its inception, and having utmost regards to the environmental laws and its ancillary rules, the Humble Answering Respondents have maintained the highest standards of compliances. However, for the expansion of the room capacity of resort, the Humble Answering Respondents filed an application for consent to establish on dated 28.01.2024 and consent to operate on dated 24.12.2023 before the Rajasthan State Pollution Board. During the pendency of the aforesaid applications, the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board issued the notice to the Humble Answering Respondents to submit the details regarding the distance from Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary, Jamwa Ramgarh Sanctuary, Sariska Tiger Reserve Sanctuary and the Forest Department. The Humble Answering Respondents immediately approached the concerned departments for obtaining the NOC/ details of the distance from the resort. Thereafter, the Deputy Forest Conservator, Wildlife, Jaipur (Rural) issued the letter dated 08.05.2024 4 O.A. No.212/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors. mentioning the distance of the resort from the boundary of Jamwagarh Wildlife Sanctuary approximately 9.50 kms and the distance of the Lohagarh resort from the Eco Sensitive Zone of the Jamwagarh Wildlife Sanctuary is approximately 8.50 kms. The Deputy Forest Conservator Tiger Project Sariska also issued the letter dated 13.05.2024 which shows the distance of the Lohagarh resort from the boundary of the Sariska Wildlife Sanctuary is 46.00 kms. The Office of the Regional Forest Office, Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary Jaipur issued the letter dated 28.05.2024 which shows the distance of the Lohagarh resort from the Nahagarh Wildlife Sanctuary is 3.25 kms. Therefore, it has been proved without reasonable doubt that the Lohagarh resort it situated outside the forest boundary, Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary, Jamwagarh Wildlife Sanctuary and the Sariska Tiger Reserve.
9. It is further submitted that the consent application is pending before the Rajasthan State Pollution Control and the Nagar Nigam, Jaipur Heritage has issued the Permanent Fire NOC dated 16.01.2025. The Respondents is fulfilling its water requirement only through water tankers, and, keeping in mind the water table of the area the Humble Answering Respondents have not dug any borewell in the premises of the Lohagraph resort. As such the water tankers supply water (Annexure-19) to the Humble Answering Respondents on a daily basis. Additionally, the Humble Answering Respondents have also installed a sewage treatment plant of 100 KLD (Annexure-20) in the aforesaid Lohagarh Resort, and is utilising the treated water for desirous resort activities. Entire Lohargarh Fort and Resort & Spa- Destination Wedding Resort has been constructed on the own khatedari land of the Respondent duly purchased by the competent person and it was duly registered. Respondent has also obtained land in the plot area of 4617 square meter in Khasra No.176/6773 Khasra No.190 by the Jaipur Development Authority vide allotment of the order in 2018 for yoga and 5 O.A. No.212/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors. mediation center which is still vacant and no construction has been made upon this land. Since there are no extraction of ground water, thus, permission from the NOC from the Central Government Authorities is not required. The resort is outside the Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctury and pre- existing activities are within the regulated categories.
10. Submissions of the learned counsel for the State Pollution Control Board are that the application for Consent to Establish expansion on Consent to Operate is pending before the State Pollution Control Board. It is further argued that the unit has obtained a onetime acknowledgement which is detailed as the Consent to Operate from RSPCB under the provisions of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.
11. The Central Ground Water Authority was directed to make an inspection and submit the report. The officers'/officials of the Central Ground Water Authority carried out a random site inspection in April 2025, and it was found that there was no ground water abstraction and resort purchases water from local water supplier which has been verified, though, shows cause notice has been issued to the supplier. It is the sole domain of the Central Ground Water Authority to do necessary actions according to rules.
12. Submissions of the learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.16, 26, 30 to 34 & 36 to 44 are that the Respondents are economically weak and landless farmers, who were allotted parcels of land by the State Government for agricultural purposes. The persons so allotted land are recognized as "Khatedars" or "Gair-Khatedars" under the law in the State of Rajasthan. The answering Respondents are in possession of Khasra Nos. 10. 68. 187/642, 187/661, 188/643, 188/660, 189/644, 189/659, 196/672, 197, 198, 199, 200, 205, 765/174, 768/174, 768/176, and 771/177 located at village Kachrawala, Jaipur, Rajasthan. The answering Respondents are 6 O.A. No.212/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors. engaged in agricultural activities on the said parcels of land. The person to whom the possession and private ownership of Khasra Numbers 187/642, 187/661, 188/643, 188/660, 189/644, 189/659, 196/672, 197, 198, 199, and 200 is Respondent No. 44. The Eco-Sensitive zone of the Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary was notified by Gazette Notification dated 08.03.2019 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC). It is stated that Under Clause 2 of the aforesaid notification, the MoEF&CC directed the State Government to prepare a Zonal Master Plan for the Eco-Sensitive Zone of the Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary. Clauses 2.4 and 2.6 specifically provide that the Zonal Master Plan shall not impose restrictions upon the existing land use. The State Government was further directed to demarcate all agricultural areas falling within the Eco- Sensitive Zone. Further, under Clause 2.3 of the notification, the State Government was also directed to integrate agricultural activities within the Eco-Sensitive Zone. Under Clause 4 of the notification prescribes a tabulated list of prohibited, regulated, and promoted activities within the Zone. Notably, at Serial No. 34 in Part B of the said table, it has been categorically provided that ongoing agricultural activities are permitted within the Eco-Sensitive Zone of the Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary.
13. It is further argued that the Respondents are poor landless farmers who were allotted land by the State Government for cultivation, as well as private landowners lawfully carrying out agricultural activities on their respective lands. The answering Respondents have been engaged in cultivation on these lands for over 30 years. The Applicant himself has filed revenue records and Jamabandi reports (Annexures A/6 and A/7) wherein the answering Respondents are shown as "Kashtkars" (farmers). Relevant portions thereof have been annexed by the answering Respondents as Annexures R-1 to R-5. These reports, which pertain to the year 2019, 7 O.A. No.212/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors. demonstrate that the Respondents and their ancestors were lawfully allotted land under the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, specifically for the purpose of agriculture. Although, no specific allegations have been made against the answering Respondents, the Applicant has generally alleged that non-forest activities are being undertaken within the Eco- Sensitive Zone. These allegations are vague, unfounded, and intended only to harass the answering Respondents for ulterior motives. The very documents relied upon by the Applicant establish the Respondents' case. The Gazette Notification dated 08.03.2019 makes it abundantly clear that agricultural activities are permissible within the Zone, while the Jamabandi reports confirm that the answering Respondents are lawful cultivators. Being of the year 2019, these records clearly attract the operation of Clauses 2.3, 2.4, 2.6, and 4 of the notification, which safeguard existing agricultural activities within the Zone. Further that the Applicant has wrongly initiated the proceedings against the farmers and remedy lies with the revenue courts.
14. An affidavit has been filed by the Department of Forest with the fact that there was the notification of the forest land and there were certain illegal encroachments for which the report was submitted to the competent authorities/District Revenue Officers and a case before the Court of Sub- divisional Officer, Amer, is pending.
15. It is to be noted that after a gap of so many years, the Forest Department has not taken prompt care to protect the forest land and has not taken proper action against the illegal encroachments and indirectly permitted to continue the illegal encroachments till the period when this application has been filed. After the initiation of the proceedings in this case, the Forest Department moved an action. The conduct shows that the official who were responsible to protect the forest land were not doing their duty fairly and 8 O.A. No.212/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors. sincerely and disciplinary action is required to be taken against the Forest Official for negligence of duties to protect the forest land.
16. The submissions of the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.12 are that the Respondent has issued permission to the Project Proponent regarding firefighting equipment's and it was renewed time to time.
17. The Collector, Jaipur, has filed the report with the facts that in compliance with the directions of the Tribunal, factual inquiry was done by Respondent No. 5. The Tehsildar, Amer was directed to prepare a ground-level site inspection report (Mauka Report) along with revenue record particulars for all khasra numbers mentioned in the present Original Application. The report received from the Tehsildar, Amer has been examined, and the khasra-wise details as per the Revenue Record and the ground/site status are set out in the table below: -
9
O.A. No.212/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.10
O.A. No.212/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.11
O.A. No.212/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
18. It is further argued that the khatedari rights over the above-mentioned lands have been obtained through due legal process under the Rajasthan Land Allotment Act, 1970. In the absence of any order passed by a competent court or authority, the Answering Respondent No. 5 has по jurisdiction to terminate, create, or transfer such khatedari rights. That except for Khasra No. 09, the remaining land has never been recorded in the 12 O.A. No.212/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors. revenue records in the name of the Forest Department. It is further submitted that and construction permanent cultivation (possession and agricultural use) have been continuing on the said lands for several years. It is stated that Khasra Nos. 188, 189, 191, 194, 195 and 196 have already undergone land use conversion. Therefore, after conferment of khatedari rights, proceedings under Section 14 (4) of the Rajasthan Land Allotment Act, 1970 cannot be initiated in respect of the said lands. That after conferment of khatedari rights, if the Forest Department seeks cancellation of such rights, it is at liberty to approach the competent court by instituting appropriate proceedings in accordance with law for obtaining necessary relief. It is further submitted that the district-level officers of the Forest Department have already been apprised of this position in earlier district- level meetings and that with respect to Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary and issues relating to the Eco-Sensitive Zone, the preparation of reports and taking necessary action regarding lands recorded in the khatedari of the Forest Department and Jaipur Development Authority required be undertaken by the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA).
19. The perusal of the record of the District Collector reveals that the proceedings of the Khatedar right has been initiated according to rules under legal process in accordance with the Rajasthan Land Allotment Act, 1970, and order passed by the competent authority and the proceedings can be initiated only under Section 14(4) of the Rajasthan Land Allotment Act, 1970, which can be initiated in revenue Courts according to rules.
20. The report further reveals that the mutation has been done and after the mutations, no proceeding can be initiated in accordance with the Section 14(4) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. It is further reported that to the extent of the encroachments, necessary actions has been initiated and 13 O.A. No.212/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors. encroachments are being removed. The learned Counsel for the applicant has also agreed on the point that the encroachments have been removed.
21. 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 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, 14 O.A. No.212/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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:
"Prescribed w.r.t. applicability of EC, FC, and WC in ESZ/ESA and other ecologically significant areas outside PA:15
O.A. No.212/2024(CZ) Rajendra 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 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 Eco- sensitive 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 Eco- sensitive 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 rigors of the Notification, inasmuch 16 O.A. No.212/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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:
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 Eco-sensitive 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 Eco- sensitive 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 17 O.A. No.212/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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 specified in this notification and the Zonal Master Plan shall factor in improvement of all infrastructure and activities to be more efficient and eco-friendlier.
(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 Sanctuary or up to the extent of the Eco-sensitive 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 18 O.A. No.212/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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 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:-19
O.A. No.212/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
40. In 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 land use.
6. Proof of deposition of tax as hotel, resort, commercial establishments, etc.
7. CTE/CTO /Environment Clearance.20
O.A. No.212/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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 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 earlier 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 Prooject Proponent shall submit the application simultaneously for grant of Terms of Reference as wells as wildlife clearance.21
O.A. No.212/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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 by the sector specific Expert Appraisal Committee and appropriate conversation measures in the form of recommendations shall be made. These recommendations shall be explicitly 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 Prooject 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 Eco- sensitive Zone, though within a radial distance of 10 Kms. from a National Park or Wildlife Sanctuary, the requirement of obtaining 22 O.A. No.212/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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 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.
23 O.A. No.212/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
43.3 That as per the Notification dated 08.03.2019, only new constructions of hotels and resorts located within a 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.
43.5 That from the record it is noted that the State Forest Authority, upon due inspection and verification of the project 24 O.A. No.212/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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 case specific 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 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.25
O.A. No.212/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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 up to 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 up to 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 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 26 O.A. No.212/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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 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 27 O.A. No.212/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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 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 authority's 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 28 O.A. No.212/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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 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 29 O.A. No.212/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
principles of administrative law, thereby attracting the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
22. Since the unit is operated outside the forest area as pre-existing unit and there are valid environmental clearances and consent condition from the Competent Authority, thus, no violation has been found. Thus, no further action is required by this Tribunal and another question has been raised with regard to the identification, measurement, demarcation, protection, mutation or removal of the encroachment but these are the subject-matter of the Revenue Courts or the Competent Forest Department to identify and demarcate it and the High-Level Committee, has been constituted to do it and the matter is pending before Hon'ble the High Court. There are violations of FCA, encroachments are there in forest area.
23. In 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 30 O.A. No.212/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
indispensability of obeying higher court orders to preserve the 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."
24. In view of the above observations, 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, and encroachments have been removed Thus, no further action is required by this Tribunal.
25. With these observations the Original Application No. 212/2024(CZ) stands disposed of accordingly.
Sheo Kumar Singh, JM Sudhir Kumar Chaturvedi, EM 6th May,2026, O.A. No.212/2024(CZ) AR 31 O.A. No.212/2024(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.