National Green Tribunal
Rajendra Tiwari vs Union Of India Through The Secretary ... on 6 May, 2026
Item No.07
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
CENTRAL ZONE BENCH, BHOPAL
(THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)
Original Application No.34/2025(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) : Dr. Sapna Aggarwal, Adv. for MoEF&CC
Mr. Gigi George, Adv. for CGWA
Mr. Rohit Sharma, Adv. for R-8 & State of
Rajasthan
Mr. N.K. Gupta, Adv. with
Mr. Satyam Jain, Adv. for R-14
ORDER
1. The grievance of the Applicant is illegal operation of Hotel Indana Palace by respondent no. 14 at the distance of 95 meters from the boundary of Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary and commercial establishment also falls within the Eco Sensitive Zone of Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary and further private respondent has not obtained requisite permission such as recommendations of National Wildlife Board, permission from State Forest Department, Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board and Central Ground Water Authority and the impugned commercial establishment is being operated without there being requisite permission under Environment Protection Act, 1986, Water Act 1974, Air Act 1981 and also wildlife clearance in view of EIA Notification 2006, the 1 O.A. No.34/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
questioned commercial establishment is situated at the distance of 95 meters from the boundary of Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary and falls within the periphery of Eco Sensitive Zone of Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary. Further contention of the applicant is to stop the illegal commercial and non forest activities which is being carried out by the private respondent in the village Nangal Sunsawatan, Jaipur within the periphery of Eco Sensitive Zone of Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary.
2. The matter was taken up by the Tribunal and notices were issued to the Respondent with direction to submit the reply. The reply has been filed.
3. During the course of hearing, a Committee was constituted with direction to submit the factual and action taken report.
Accordingly, the report has been filed.
4. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.
5. The members of the Joint Committee visited the site and submitted the report as follows:-
"Observations Following is the factual observation of the site visit:
(i) The unit named as M/s Indana Palace is engaged in operation of a 118 room Hotel at Khasra No. 28-34, 130-135, Near Police check post Kunda, Jaipur Delhi Highway, Tehsil-
Amber, District- Jaipur.
(ii) As per the categorization of the State Board, Hotels (3 Star & Above) and/or Hotels having 100 rooms and above are covered under Red Category. The unit had submitted first application dated 15.10.2014 for Consent to Establish under the provisions of the Water Act, 1974 and the Air Act, 1981, which was granted vide State Board's letter dated 18.02.2015 for hotel activity for 118 rooms. Subsequently, unit applied for further 2 O.A. No.34/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Consent to Establish/Consent to Operate, which were disposed of by the RSPCB on merits. At present, the unit is having valid Consent to Operate under the provisions of the Water Act, 1974 and the Air Act, 1981 dated 12.10.2022, valid till 31.03.2027 for Hotel activity for 118 rooms.
(iii) The unit has obtained NOC from CGWA for abstraction of 90 KLD ground water from 02 borewells, which is valid upto 01.07.2025. Unit has provided water meters at both the borewells.
(iv) The total built up area of the unit is less than 20,000 Square Meter (As per the approved map total built up area is 12988.25 Square Meter), therefore, unit does not require to obtain Environmental Clearance under the provisions of the EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006.
6. The perusal of the record reveals that the Unit is being operated outside the forest are and pre-existing before the notification dated 18.03.2019 and has valid Consent from the State PCB.
7. Submissions of the learned Counsel for the Respondent/State PCB are that the unit has obtained consent to establish under the Water Act and Air Act and currently it is valid. It is further submitted that the approved map has been issued in accordance with the existing law.
8. Submissions of the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.12 are that a unit has valid NOC from Central Ground Water Authority and further that necessary orders have been issued in favor of the Project Proponent.
9. Further submission of the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 14 are that the Respondent having absolute owner of the present commercial establishment as he purchased the land by khatadar land holder and executed sale deed dt. 06.08.2010 from Shrimati Bhagwati Devi and sale deed dt. 23.08.2010 from Ramesh Chand 3 O.A. No.34/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
and thereafter the above land was converted for commercial use by Jaipur Development Authority and allotment letter (Patta) dt.
13.09.2011 was issued in favour of non-applicant along with site plan and relevant documents. The distance has been mentioned in OA that operation of Hotel Indana Palace is being carried out only 95 meters from boundary of Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary is totally false averment, infect it is situated just in front of above sanctuary at 190 meters away after crossing Jaipur Delhi National Highway No. 11 and that the land acquired for wildlife sanctuary and villages as mentioned in this para not belongs to the area of non-applicant in which commercial establishment of non-
applicant is being run because the operation of hotel activities is been carried out just at opposite side, the boundary wall of sanctuary and it is 190 meters ahead after crossing Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary as well as National Highway No. 11 Jaipur to Delhi therefore order dt. 21.11.1961 (Annexure A/1) not applicable to Respondent. It is stated that the activities carried out by the respondent not come in way of notification dt. 08.03.2019 in any manner for the reason there is National Highway No 11 situated in between boundary of sanctuary and non-applicant's property. It is also stated that the non-applicant operating only Hotel activities since Nov. 2016 only therefore it is not disturbed ECO-System in any manner, no pollution activities are done by non-applicant and there is other Hotel & Resorts are operating their business and otherwise also the non-applicant has obtained required NOC's like pollution, under water passing system etc.
10. It is further argued that the respondent got NOC from Pollution Control Board vide letter dt. 12.10.2022 as well as NOC from 4 O.A. No.34/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Central Ground Water Board vide it's letter dt. 18.08.2023. It is further submitted the answering respondent got certificate of completion work vide letter dt. 09.06.2017 from local self-
Government, State of Rajasthan.
11. It is further argued that Notification dt. 19.10.2010 is not applicable in case of Respondent as a matter of fact the boundary of sanctuary is very far away from the hotel of the Respondent and the distance is about 190 meters from wildlife sanctuary after crossing a National Highway. The Respondent having absolute owner of the present commercial establishment as he purchased the land by khatadar land holder and executed sale deed dt.
06.08.2010 from Shrimati Bhagwati Devi and sale deed dt.
23.08.2010 from Ramesh Chand and thereafter the above land was converted for commercial use by Jaipur Development Authority and allotment letter dt. 13.09.2011 was issued in favour of non-applicant along with site plan and relevant documents. The distance has been mentioned in OA that operation of Hotel Indana Palace is 95 meters from boundary of Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary is totally false averment, infect it is situated just in front of above sanctuary at 190 meters away after crossing Jaipur Delhi National Highway No. 11. It is pertinent to mentioned here that the answering respondent carried out the above activity by virtue of law as he have obtained absolute owner's rights from authority of State Government therefore no occasion meet out for obtaining NOC/Permission from deferent department to conduct his business activity. The answering respondent obtained certain NOC from different department as prescribed under Law and documents are Annexed with this reply in for going paras.
5O.A. No.34/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
12. It is further argued that electricity connection has been obtained as per law from the Electricity Department, Jaipur, which does not come under forest land.
13. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.01/MoEF&CC has argued that necessary notification has been issued with regard to the Eco-Sensitive Zone and the Respondents have to comply it. It is further argued that the responsibility to enforce the rule of law or with the State PCB to monitor it and in case of non-compliance or violation to take further necessary actions.
14. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.11/Electricity Department has submitted that connections were issued according to existing law and there are no violations.
15. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.05 & 06/Forest Department has submitted that the Khasra Nos. 28-34, 130-135 located in village Amer, District Jaipur are outside the forest area and do not fall within the boundaries of Nahargarh Sanctuary.
However, it is submitted that these Khasras fall within the Eco-
Sensitive Zone (ESZ) of Nahargarh Sanctuary notified on 18.03.2019. As per the ESZ map, the land in question lies within the Eco-Sensitive Zone of Nahargarh Sanctuary and the land on which the hotel stands was allotted by the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) on 13.09.2011 for commercial use (hotel activity).
In compliance with the directions of this Tribunal, a Joint Committee comprising representatives of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest-cum-Chief Wildlife Warden, Central Ground Water Board, Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (RSPCB), and the National Wildlife Board conducted a thorough inspection of the site and perusing all relevant records concluded that the 6 O.A. No.34/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
unit is operating outside the forest area and sanctuary and within the Eco Sensitive Zone of the Sanctuary. It is stated that that the Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) of the Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary was finally notified on 08.03.2019. As per the said notification, no new commercial hotels or resorts shall be permitted within a distance of one kilometer from the boundary of the protected area or up to the extent of the Eco-Sensitive Zone, whichever is nearer, except for small temporary structures intended for eco-tourism activities.
Further, new commercial construction of any kind is strictly prohibited within the same restricted zone.
16. 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, 7 O.A. No.34/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
the case of the petitioner was specifically examined, and the Chief Wildlife Warden, upon due consideration, recorded a finding that no violation was made out. The applicability of the Notifications dated 14.09.2006 and 08.03.2019, as well as the relevant judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, were also duly taken into account while making such recommendation. Subsequently, a Circular dated 26.09.2023 (Annexure-RR/6) was issued by the Joint Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Department of Forest, Environment & Climate Change, wherein guidelines were laid down for classification of units as "existing" or "new" in terms of the Notifications of the years 2006 and 2019. The said Circular further took into consideration the guidelines issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, particularly with respect to eco- sensitive zones and categorization of industrial and commercial activities therein, thereby providing clarity on the regulatory framework governing such projects.
38. This Court further takes note of the Office Memorandum dated 17.05.2022 (Annexure-19), issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, concerning the grant of clearances for projects situated in and around eco-sensitive zones. The said Office Memorandum elucidates the requirement of obtaining permissions from various authorities, including environmental, forest, and the National Board for Wildlife, depending upon the nature, location, and classification of the project. The same delineates, in a tabulated form, the categories of projects and the corresponding approvals required, thereby bringing greater clarity and uniformity in the application of the statutory framework. The relevant table is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:8
O.A. No.34/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
" Prescribed w.r.t. applicability of EC, FC, and WC in ESZ/ESA and other ecologically significant areas outside PA:9
O.A. No.34/2025(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 10 O.A. No.34/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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 EcoSensitive Zone (ESZ) was delineated in respect of the boundary of the NWLS, specifying the extent thereof. The said Notification further mandated preparation of a Zonal Master Plan for the EcoSensitive Zone within a period of two years from the date of its publication, in consultation with local stakeholders and with the involvement of as many as thirteen different departments of the State Government. However, a plain reading of the said Notification makes it abundantly clear that "existing units"
were specifically excluded from the rigours of the Notification, inasmuch as the restrictions and regulatory measures introduced therein were not intended to operate retrospectively so as to affect already approved and existing land use and activities. The relevant provisions of the said Notification are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
"MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 8th March, 2019 NOW THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (1) and clauses (v) and (xiv) of sub-section (2) and sub- section (3) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986) (hereafter in this modification referred to as the Environment Act) read with sub-rule (3) of rule 5 of the Environment(Protection) Rules, 1986 the Central Government hereby notifies an area to an extent of 0( zero) to 13 kilometers around the boundary of Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary, in 11 O.A. No.34/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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 EcoSensitive Zone is 79.356 square kilometers. Zero extent is towards the sides with heavy urbanization.
(2) xxxxx (3) xxxxx (4) xxxxx (5) xxxxx
2. Zonal Master Plan for Eco-Sensitive Zone.- (1) The State Government shall, for the purpose of the EcoSensitive Zone prepare a Zonal Master Plan within a period of two years from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette, in consultation with local people and adhering to the stipulations given in this notification for approval of the Competent authority of State.
(2) The Zonal Master Plan for the Eco-Sensitive Zone shall be prepared by the State Government in such manner as is specified in this notification and also in consonance with the relevant Central and State laws and the guidelines issued by the Central Government, if any. (3) The Zonal Master Plan shall be prepared in consultation with the following Departments of the State Government, for integrating the ecological and environmental considerations into the said plan:-
(i) Environment,
(ii) Forest,
(iii) Urban Development,
(iv) Tourism,
(v) Revenue,
(vi) Agriculture,
(vii) Rural Development, 12 O.A. No.34/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
(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-friendly. (5) xxxxx (6) xxxxx (7) xxxxx (8) The Zonal Master Plan shall be co-terminus with the Regional Development Plan.
E. Tourism or Eco-Tourism- (a) All new eco-tourism activities or expansion of existing tourism activities within the Zone shall be as per the Tourism Master Plan for the Eco-Sensitive Zone.
(b) The Eco-Tourism Master Plan shall be prepared by the State Department of Tourism in the consultation with State Departments of Environment and Forests.
(c) The Tourism Master Plan shall form a component of the Zonal Master Plan.
(d) The activities of eco-tourism shall be regulated as under
namely :-
(i) new construction of hotels and resorts shall not be allowed within one kilometer from the boundary of the Wildlife Sancturary or upto the extent of the EcoSensitive Zone whichever is nearer :
Provided that beyond the distance of one kilometer from the boundary of the Wildlife Sanctuary till the extent of the Eco-Sensitive Zone, the establishment of new hotels and resorts shall be allowed only in pre-defined and designated areas for eco-tourism facilities as per Tourism Master Plan;
(ii) all new tourism activities or expansion of existing tourism activities within the Eco-Sensitive Zone shall be in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Central Government in the Ministry of Environment, Forest and 13 O.A. No.34/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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:-14
O.A. No.34/2025(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.15
O.A. No.34/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
3. Conversation order/Patta for non-agricultural use.
4. Building Plan approval.
5. Order regarding change in landuse.
6. Proof of deposition of tax as hotel, resort, commercial establishments, etc.
7. CTE/CTO /Environment Clearance.
Additionally, all the duly approved uses existing prior to issue of Nahargarh ESZ Notification shall be honored. Further process will be done in conformity with the development controls & zoning regulation as per Zonal Master Plan of ESZ."
41.This Court further observed that in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 08.08.2019 (Annexure-RR/2) issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (IA Division), a detailed procedure was prescribed for consideration of developmental projects situated within a radius of 10 kms. from National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries, while 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 16 O.A. No.34/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
supersession of the ealier O.M. s dated 27.2.2007 and 2.12.2009:
i. Proposals involving developmental activity/project located within by the notified Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZ) shall be regulated and governed by the concerned ESZ notification. However, for the developmental Schedule of the EIA notification. However, for the developmental project/activity located within the notified ESZ and covered under the schedule of the EIA Notification 2006, prior clearance from Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (SCNBWL) is mandatory. In such cases, the project proponent shall submit the application simultaneously for grant of Terms of Reference as wells as wildlife clearance.
ii. Proposals involving developmental activity/ project located outside the stipulated boundary limit of notified ESZ and located within 10 km of National Park/Wildlife Sanctuary, prior clearance from Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (SCNBWL) may not be applicable. However, such proposals from environmental angle including impact of developmental activity/project on the wildlife habitat, if any, would be examined by the sector specific Expert Appraisal Committee and appropriate conversation measures in the form of recommendations shall be made. These recommendations shall be explicity mentioned in the environmental clearance letter and shall be ensured by the member secretary concerned.
iii. Proposals involving developmental activity/project located within 10 km of National Park/Wildlife Sanctuary wherein final ESZ notification is not notified (or) ESZ notification is in draft stage, prior clearance from Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (SCBNWL) is mandatory. In such cases, the project proponent shall submit the application simultaneously for grant of Terms, of Reference/ environmental clearance as well as wildlife clearance.17
O.A. No.34/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
iv. Proposals involving mining of minerals within the ESZ (or) one kilometer from the boundaries of National Parks and Sanctuaries whichever is higher is prohibited in accordance with the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 4.08.2006 in the matter of T.N. Godavarman Thirmulpad Vs. UOI in W.P. (C) No. 202 of 1995 and dated 21.4.2014 in the matter of Goa Foundation Vs. UOI in W.P. (C) No. 435 of 2012.
42. Thus upon a bare perusal of the aforesaid Office Memorandum, it is opined that the projects situated within the Eco-Sensitive Zones are made subject to regulatory control and mandatorily require prior clearance from the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (SCNBWL). However, it is equally evident from Clause (ii) thereof that in cases where a project is located outside the demarcated boundaries of the notified EcoSensitive Zone, though within a radial distance of 10 Kms. from a National Park or Wildlife Sanctuary, the requirement of obtaining prior clearance from the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife shall not be applicable.
43. Upon a comprehensive consideration of the aforesaid facts, the material placed on record, and in light of the issues 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 18 O.A. No.34/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Wildlife Sanctuary, do not attract the requirement of prior clearance from the SCNBWL. Consequently, the said stipulation is not applicable to the case of the present Petitioner.
43.2. That the Notification dated 08.03.2019 distinctly classifies activities into "prohibited", "regulated", and "promotional" categories. The hotel project of the petitioner, by its very nature and in view of the approvals granted, falls within the ambit of "regulated activity". The said Notification further mandates preparation of a Zonal Master Plan for Eco- Sensitive Zones, to be formulated with the approval of the competent State authority in consultation with as many as thirteen concerned departments, including but not limited to the Environment, Forest, Tourism, and Local Bodies Departments. The object of such a coordinated framework is to ensure infrastructural development and ecological balance, without disturbing or imposing restrictions upon already approved and existing land-use and infrastructural developments. The Zonal Master Plan is further intended to operate in harmony with the Regional/Tourism Development Plans, thereby ensuring a balanced approach towards eco-tourism and sustainable development.
43.3 That as per the Notification dated 08.03.2019, only new constructions of hotels and resorts located within a 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, 19 O.A. No.34/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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 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 20 O.A. No.34/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
prescribed procedure, ought to have been duly considered and approved by the concerned authorities.
43.6 This Court further observes that, upon a bare perusal of Para 78.3.23 of the impugned findings recorded by the Standing Committee, it becomes evident that the Standing Committee, while dealing with more than 33 fresh proposals across four different agenda items, failed to undertake a proper and casespecific analysis of the material facts pertaining to the Petitioner's project. It is discernible that the proposal placed before the Standing Committee was in relation to the construction of a hotel in proximity to the Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary. However, the record unequivocally reflects that the competent State Wildlife Authority had after due consideration and inspection, positively recommended the Petitioner's proposal. Despite the same, the Standing Committee appears to have proceeded without adequately appreciating the factual matrix and the favourable recommendation of the State authorities, thereby rendering its consideration perfunctory and lacking in due application of mind. The relevant extract from the impugned findings made by the Standing Committee is reproduced hereinbelow:
"78.3.23. Proposal for construction of Kanha Hotels and Spa Pvt. Ltd. Over an area of 0.0845 ha at Khasra No. 54,55 village Chimanpura Tehsil Amer Dist Jaipur, Rajasthan 95 mts from the boundary of Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary.
FP/RJ/Others/4553/2019 The Standing Committee was informed that the proposal is for construction of Kanha Hotels and Spa Pvt. Ltd. Over an 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.21
O.A. No.34/2025(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 upto the extent of Ecosensitive zone, whichever is nearer, except for small temporary structures for Eco- tourism activities and new commercial construction of any kind shall not be permitted within one kilometer from the boundary of the protected area or upto extent of the Ecosensitive Zone whichever is nearer.
Decision Taken: After discussion, the Standing Committee decided not to recommend the project proposal."
43.7 In light of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the Standing Committee has committed a manifest error in considering the proposal, as stated above, in an ex-parte manner because the petitioner's case was of an "existing unit", which was already operational. The specific words used by the Standing Committee, like, "proposal for construction", "new hotel", "shall be permitted in eco-sensitive zone" signifies the facts that they were under the impression that proposal was for setting-up of a new hotel; howsoever, as per the records and after attaining different permissions, inter alia, the JDA Completion Certificate, zonal master plan and the fact that the construction of the petitioner's unit was already completed, way back, the said unit qualifies as an "existing unit" and is therefore, not required to have any permission from the Standing Committee or Wild Life Board. The fact could have been otherwise if opportunity of hearing would have been granted to the petitioner. The Standing Committee has committed a manifest error in law as well as on facts by erroneously classifying the Petitioner's project as a "new 22 O.A. No.34/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
commercial hotel", instead of recognizing it as an "existing unit". It has further drawn an incorrect inference that, as on 22.12.2024, the Petitioner was required to obtain permission for construction as a "new unit". Such a conclusion is ex facie contrary to the statutory framework, inasmuch as, in terms of Para 10.4 of the Notification dated 08.03.2019 read with the Zonal Master Plan, the Petitioner squarely qualifies as an "existing unit", and therefore, no prior approval of the Standing Committee was required.
44. Having addressed the issues in light of the detailed factual matrix and the attendant intricacies of the matter at hand, this Court now deems it apposite to draw guidance from the authoritative pronouncements rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as follows:
44.1 It is a settled proposition of law that any administrative decision, particularly one which departs from or rejects a recommendation duly accorded by competent State Authorities, must adhere to the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and due process, which are the foundational tenets of the rule of law. Any decision rendered in contravention of such principles cannot be said to be immune from judicial review. In the present case, this Court finds that there is an apparent failure of due application of mind on the part of the Standing Committee while recording the impugned findings, thereby rendering the decision vulnerable to interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. In support of the said stance, reliance can be placed upon the ratio encapsulated in Syed Yakoob (supra) the relevant extract of which is reproduced hereinbelow:
"8. It is, of course, not easy to define or adequately describe what an error of law apparent on the face of the record means. What can be corrected by a writ has to be an error of law; hut it must be such an error of 23 O.A. No.34/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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 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."24
O.A. No.34/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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 authorities certainty requires that the judgment of the Court should meet with this requirement with higher degree of satisfaction. The order of an administrative authority may not provide reasons like a judgment but the order must be supported by the reasons of rationality. The distinction between passing of an order by an administrative or quasi-judicial authority has practically extinguished and both are required to pass reasoned orders."
PARTING OBSERVATIONS, FINAL DETERMINATION, AND OPERATIVE DIRECTIVES:
45. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is persuaded to allow the present writ petition for the following, amongst other, compelling reasons emerging from the record, as that the Petitioner has, since the year 1995, acted bona fide and in a continuous manner, obtaining all requisite statutory approvals from the competent authorities for establishment and operation of the hotel project, including land conversion, tourism approvals, building plan sanction, environmental clearance, and consents from pollution control and fire authorities; that the project in question stands duly completed, with construction having been finalized, followed by issuance of completion certificate 25 O.A. No.34/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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 principles of administrative law, thereby attracting the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
17. After perusal of the report, it reveals that the matter relates to the identification, demarcation, measurement, protection of the land, deletion of the name, change of the name and mutation of the name, which is not within the domain of the National Green Tribunal. For mutation of the name, the matter is pending before 26 O.A. No.34/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
the revenue court or the aggrieved may file application before the competent revenue court. If there are any encroachments on the forest land, the Aggrieved/Forest Department may approach to the appropriate forum. It is to be noted that vide order dated 16th February, 2026, this Tribunal has observed as follows:-
"5. Principal Secretary Forest & Environment Department and Principal Secretary (Revenue) are, therefore, directed to ensure that necessary entries of forest as per notification are made in revenue records for Amer forest within two months. A special drive has to be started by the two departments in this regard to ensure that these entries are completed for the entire state within 6 months. Necessary action is required to be undertaken by Principal Secretary Forest & Environment Department and Principal Secretary, Revenue Department in this regard."
18. It is to be noted that in Original Application No.226/2023(CZ), the similar issue was raised and this Tribunal directed the authorities as follows:-
"1. The grievance in this application as raised by the applicant relates to identification, demarcation and mutation of the land of Van Khand Amer 54, which was notified by the State vide Notification dated 21.11.2061 and further notified vide notification dated 22.09.1980 as Wildlife Sanctuary and Eco Sensitive Zone Nahargarh Wildlife vide notification dated 08.03.2019. Various cases have been filed which raises substantial issue with regard to illegal constructions and encroachments within the wildlife sanctuary and eco sensitive zone in violation of notification and want of clear demarcation and identification or mutation in the name of forest department according to the state notification, serious disputes arose between the persons in whose favour certain rights has been accrued and when a question was raised with regard to unauthorized and illegal construction.
2. In these circumstances it is more appropriate to find out a reasonable and just solution to implement the notifications issued by the State Government and to identify the land and to mutate in the name of the Forest Department as per rules.27
O.A. No.34/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
3. We deem it just and proper to constitute a committee consisting of following members:-
i. One representative from the Addl. Chief Secretary of Forest & Wildlife, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan) ii. One representative from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest cum Chief Wildlife Warden, Forest Department, Govt. of Rajasthan (Rajasthan) iii. One representative from the Principal Secretary (Revenue), Govt. of Rajasthan, Rajasthan iv. One representative of Ex-officio Chairman/District Collector, Jaipur/Chairman of the Monitoring Committee constituted vide notification dated 08.03.2019 issued from the MoEF & CC."
19. It is reported that High Level Committee headed by the Principle Chief Conservation Forest was constituted to identify, demarcate and measure the land of forest area which have finalized it and aggrieved by the order or the action, a Writ Petition has been filed before Hon'ble the High Court and some interim orders have been passed.
20. Learned Counsel for the State relying on State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Raghu Ramakrishna Raju Kanumuru decided on 01st of June, 2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when the matter has been taken by the Higher Court/Constitutional Court, then in that case precedence of Constitutional Courts over the statutory Tribunals like - NGT, in the matter of territorial jurisdiction prevails. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:-
"i. Priya Gupta v. Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (2013) 11 SCC 404: This case underscored that government departments are not exempt from complying with court orders. It emphasized that orders from higher courts hold paramount authority, and 28 O.A. No.34/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
lower tribunals must adhere to them to maintain legal coherence and respect for the judiciary.
ii. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1995) 1 SCC 400: A Constitutional Bench judgment that established the hierarchy and jurisdictional boundaries between different judicial bodies, reinforcing that statutory tribunals like the NGT are subordinate to High Courts within their territorial jurisdiction. East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs AIR 1962 SC 1893:
This case highlighted the necessity for administrative bodies to follow higher court directives to ensure consistency and predictability in judicial decisions. Official Liquidator v. Dayanand (2008) 10 SCC 1: Reiterated the indispensability of obeying higher court orders to preserve the 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."
21. Since the matter which is pending before the High Court will be governed by the orders of the Hon'ble High Court. So far as the violations are concerned, no violation has been found. Thus, no further action is required by this Tribunal.
29O.A. No.34/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
22. The, Original Application No.34/2025(CZ) stands disposed of accordingly.
Sheo Kumar Singh, JM Sudhir Kumar Chaturvedi, EM 06th May, 2026, Original Application No.34/2025(CZ) I.D. 30 O.A. No.34/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.