National Green Tribunal
Sunil Kumar vs Union Of India on 6 February, 2026
Item No.01
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
CENTRAL ZONE BENCH, BHOPAL
(Through Video Conferencing)
Original Application No.112/2025(CZ)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Sunil Kumar,
S/o Shri Gopal Singh,
Age about 36 years,
R/o - Karmodiya, Raisen, Madhya Pradesh,
Applicant(s)
Versus
1. Union Of India
Through secretry, Ministry of
Environment, forest and Climate
Change Goverment of India,
Paryavaran Bhavan CGO, Complex
Lodhi Road New Delhi, Respondent No. 01
2. State of Madhya Pradesh
Through Principal Secretary
Forest Department, Van Bhavan
Tulsi Nagar Bhopal, Respondent No. 02
3. Director, Mines & Geology
Department
Arera Hills Bhopal, Respondent No. 03
4. District Collector,
Collectrate office District Raisen, Respondent No. 04
5. Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control
Board
Through Member Secretery, E-5,Arera
Colony, Bhopal Madhya Pradesh Respondent No. 05
6. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra
Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd.
Through Managing Director Bijli Nagar
Colony Nishtha Parishar Govindpura
Bhopal, Respondent No. 06
1
O.A. No.112/2025(CZ) Sunil Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors.
7. Pradeep Patel,
S/o Badami Patel
R/o Ward No.17 Shayam Nagar Colony
Village Gondra Distict Raisen Madhya
Pradesh,
COUNSELS FOR APPLICANT(S):
Mr. Raja Ujjwal, Adv.
COUNSELS FOR RESPONDENT(S):
Mr. Dharamvir Sharma, Adv. for MoEF&CC
Mr. Prashant M. Harne, Adv. for State of M.P.
Ms. Parul Bhadoria, Adv. for MPPCB
Ms. Mansi Bachani, Adv. for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. SUDHIR KUMAR CHATURVEDI, EXPERT MEMBER
Date of completion of hearing and reserving of order : 03.02.2026
Date of uploading of order on website : 06.02.2026
JUDGMENT
1. The grievance as raised by the Applicant is illegal mining and stone crushing operation being conducted by the Private Respondent inside the protected forest area bearing Forest Compartment 52 in the map of Forest Survey of India near the Raisen District of Madhya Pradesh and are continuing their mining and stone crushing operation in flagrant violation of the law, causing irreparable loss to the environment. It is stated that the unauthorised mining operations pose severe ecological risks and environmental degradation including irreversible damage to the forest ecosystem, loss of biodiversity, soil erosion, groundwater contamination, disruption of wildlife habitats, and degradation of the natural carbon sequestration capacity of the forest area and such 2 O.A. No.112/2025(CZ) Sunil Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. activities adversely affect the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 21 (Right to Clean Environment) of the Constitution of India and directly contravene the constitutional mandate under Article 48-A of the Constitution of India, which enjoins the State to protect and improve the environment and safeguard forests and wildlife, and constitute a clear violation of the Precautionary Principle and Sustainable Development doctrine as established in various environmental jurisprudence. The continued illegal mining operations, if left unchecked, will result in permanent ecological damage, affecting the hydrological cycle, increasing the risk of landslides and flooding, and causing irreparable harm to the fragile forest ecosystem that serves as a critical environmental resource for present and future generations.
2. Notices were issued to the Respondents with direction to submit the reply. Accordingly, the replies has been filed.
3. During the course of hearing, a Joint Committee was constituted consisting the representative each from the District Collector, Raisen, and Member Secretary, State PCB, with direction to submit the factual and action taken report. The same has been filed.
4. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
5. The only contention of the Applicant is that the illegal mining and stone crushing is in operation encroaching the forest land. To verify the position, this Tribunal constituted a Committee directing them to submit the factual and action taken report. The Joint Committee has submitted the report with the following observations:-
"Observations:
1. The committee along with the applicant and other officials visited the site on 08th October 2025 to record the status of the site. During 3 O.A. No.112/2025(CZ) Sunil Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors.
visit it is observed that a stone crusher and boulder mine was established by Sh. Pradeep Patel s/o Sh. Badameelal Patel at Khasra No. 03, Village-Gondra, Dist. Rasien. As per revenue map site is government located in Khasra No. 03 and as per forest map said land is located in forest compartment PF 52. So forest and revenue land boundary is not clear. Cutting of is not observed at site.
2. GPS location of the Khasra No.03, Village Gondara, Tehsil & District Raisen (M.P.), has been recorded using a mobile-based GPS application.
3. Mining lease for 10 years on 2.105 hectare of land at khasra number 03 of village Gondara was allotted to Sh. Pradeep Patel s/o Sh. Badameelal Patel in year 2008 and mining lease was subsequently renewed for next 10 year in the year 2018.
4. Forest Department Raisen has issued No Objection Certificate (NOC) for mining activities on above stated land in year 2008, 2015 and 2017. On the above stated land Project Proponent has also obtained Environmental Clearance (EC) from District Environment Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA), Raisen on dated 01/10/2018.
5. M.P. Pollution Control Board has granted consent under Water (Prevention and Control) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control) Act, 1981 to M/s. Pradeep Patel Mining Unit (2.105 ha), Khasra No.03. Village Gondara, Tehsil & District Raisen (M.P.) on dated 06/08/2021 with validity up to 16/07/2026.
6. As per Hon'ble NGT order dated 07/12/2022 in OA No. 142/2022 all valid Environmental Clearance (EC) issued by DEIAA shall be reappraised through SEAC/SEIAA. It is directed that all concerned SEACs shall reappraised the EC issued by DEIAA between 15/01/2026 and 13/09/2018 (including both dates) and all fresh ECs in this regards shall be issued by SEIAAs only after such appraisal. In compliance of Hon'ble NGT order Project Proponent had applied for getting EC appraisal from SEIAA.
7. In reference to Hon'ble NGT order dated 07/12/2022 in OA No. 142/2022 Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) has issued direction under section 18(1)(b) of the Air (Prevention and Control) Act, 1981 and Water (Prevention and Control) Act, 1974 vide letter No. on dated CM-13011/94/2024-LAW-HO-CPCB-HO/1317 03/05/2024. As per CPCB direction consent granted to unit, which have mining leases executed on the basis of ECs granted by DEIAA after 13/09/2018, shall be revoked and issue closure order. Hence in 4 O.A. No.112/2025(CZ) Sunil Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors.
compliance of direction MPPCB has revoked consent issued under Air (Prevention and Control) Act, 1981 and Water (Prevention and Control) Act, 1974 vide letter dated 09/08/2024."
6. Brief of the Joint Committee Report is that there are no violations and the area does not fall within the forest area. With regard to grant of Environmental Clearance, it is submitted that in light of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the matter has been referred to the SEIAA for consideration according to rules.
7. The Collector concerned was also directed to verify the position and Collector, Raisen, vide report dated 29.10.2025 has submitted the report that the area does not fall within the forest area. The report is quoted below:-
"............x.................x................x...............x........................ संदर्भः - कार्ाभ लर् कलेक्टर जिला रार्सेन का आदे श जदनाक 24.09.2025 एव क्षेत्रीर् अजिकारी म.प्र. प्र.जन.बो. मंण्डीदीप जिला रार्सेन का पत्र जदनां क 23.09.2025 उपरोक्त जवषर्ां तर्भत लेख है जक माननीर् राष्ट्रीर् हररत अजिकरण, प्रकरण क्र. ओ.ए. न. 112/2025 (CZ), " Sunil Kumar Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors," में श्री प्रदीप पटे ल आत्मि श्री बदामी पटे ल जनवासी वार्भ न0 17 श्यामनर्र कालोनी रार्सेन द्वारा ग्राम र्ोंदरा तहसील व जिला रार्सेन की शासकीर् र्ूजम के खसरा कमां क 3 रकबा 2.105 हे 0 क्षेत्र पर पत्थर उत्खनन कर क्रेशर मशीन से जर्ट्टी जनमाभ ण हे तु स्वीकृत उत्खजनपट्टा के संबंि में उपरोक्त र्ाजिका दार्र की र्ई है. जिसमें उक्त स्वीकृत क्षेत्र को वनखण्ड पी एफ 52 होना बतलार्ा र्र्ा है ।
1. वन मण्डलाजिकारी (सा०) वनमण्डल रार्सेन से प्राप्त पत्र जदनां क 15.10.2025 अनुसार उपरोक्त जशकार्त की िां ि हे तु वन मण्डल स्तर पर र्जित सजमजत द्वारा स्थल जनरीक्षण कर िां ि प्रजतवेदन प्रस्तुत जकर्ा र्र्ा है । जनरीक्षण के दौरान श्री प्रदीप पटे ल मौके पर उपस्थस्थत पार्े र्र्े। जशकार्त में उल्लेस्थखत स्थल पर क्रेशर स्थापना का बोर्भ लर्ा हुआ पार्ा र्र्ा, जिस पर जनम्न जववरण अंजकत था. ग्राम र्ोंदरा खसरा क्रमां क 3 रकबा 5.2 एकर् अवजि 08.08.2018 से 08.08.2028 प.ह.न. 23 पार्ा र्र्ा। सर्ुक्त सीमां कन पंिनामा जदनां क 27.04 2018 के अनुसार रािस्व एव जवर्ार् द्वारा स्थल सीमा का जनिाभ रण जकर्ा र्र्ा। र्ी.सी.आर. पंिी के परीक्षण उपरां त र्ह पार्ा र्र्ा जक खसरा 5 O.A. No.112/2025(CZ) Sunil Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors.
क्रमां क 3 (पूवभ में खसरा क्रमां क 6) ग्राम र्ोदरा पी.एफ 52 के र्ीतर सस्थिजलत नही है। अतः उपर्ुक्त िां ि प्रजतवेदन संलग्न कर आवश्यक कार्भवाही हे तु प्रेजषत जकर्ा र्र्ा है ।
2. उक्त क्षेत्र के सबंि में उपरोक्त जवषर्ातर्भत एव संदजर्भत पत्रों द्वारा र्जित सजमजत द्वारा संर्ुक्त िां ि जदनां क 08.10.2025 को सर्ुक्त िां ि में मौके पर उपस्थस्थत समस्त अजिकारीर्ों एवं र्ाजिकाकताभ के समक्ष उक्त क्षेत्र की िााँ ि की र्ई. मौका पंिनामा तैर्ार जकर्ा र्र्ा जिसमें र्ह तथ्य उल्लेस्थखत जकर्ा र्र्ा है जक उपरोक्त क्षेत्र रािस्व नक्शा खसरा नंम्बर 3 रकबा 10.975 शासकीर् र्ूजम है , एव वन जवर्ार् के नक्शा अनुसार पी.एफ.-52 बीट र्ोंदरा में र्ी आता है । मौके पर खसरा न. 3 पर कोई र्ी कटे हुए पेर् नही पार्े र्र्े हैं। पूवभ में वन एवं रािस्व का संर्ुक्त सीमां कन जकर्ा िा िुका है । उपरोक्त क्षेत्र के सबंि मे रािस्व अजर्लेख एव कार्ाभ लर्ीन अजर्लेखों के आिार, वन मण्डलाजिकारी (सा०) वनमण्डल रार्सेन से प्राप्त पत्र जदनां क 27.03.2008, पर ग्राम र्ोंदरा तहसील व जिला रार्सेन की शासकीर् र्ूजम के खसरा कमां क 3 रािस्व र्ूजम होना पार्ा र्र्ा।
3. आवेजदत क्षेत्र के संबंि में वन जवर्ार्, रािस्व जवर्ार् ग्राम पंिार्त से प्राप्त िहराव प्रस्ताव, खजन जनरीक्षक एवं सहार्क मानजित्रकार से स्थल जनरीक्षण प्रजतवेदनों में उत्खजनपट्टा स्वीकृजत की अनुशंसा की र्ई जिसमे प्राप्त िां ि प्रजतवेदनों के आिार पर एवं वन मण्डलाजिकारी (सा०) वनमण्डल रार्सेन से प्राप्त पत्र जदनां क 27.03.2008, 27.11.2017 अनुसार प्राप्त िाि प्रजतवेदनों एवं वन जवर्ार् के प्रजतवेदन अनुसार उत्खजनपट्टा जनर्मानुसार स्वीकृत जकर्ा र्र्ा जिसकी अवजि 08.08 2008 से 07.08 2018 तक एवं प्रथम नवीनीकरण अवजि 08.08.2018 से 07 08 2028 तक क्षेत्र पर पत्थर उत्खनन कर क्रेशर मशीन से जर्ट्टी जनमाभ ण हे तु उत्खजनपट्टा स्वीकृत है आवश्यक वैिाजनक अनुमजतर्ा प्राप्त करने उपरां त खदान का संिालन सुिारू रूप से जकर्ा िा रहा था वतभमान में सहार्क खजन अजिकारी द्वारा मौके पर तैर्ार मौका पंिनामा अनुसार नवीन पर्ाभवरण अनुमजत एवं म.प्र. प्रदू षण जनर्ंत्रण बोर्भ की अनापजि नहीं होने के कारण खदान से पत्थर उत्खनन एवं केशर सिालन न हो इस हे तु केशर मशीन को ताला लर्ाकर बंद जकर्ा र्र्ा है तत्संबंि में पट्टे दार को जलस्थखत एवं मौस्थखक रूप से अवर्त करार्ा र्र्ा है । अत रािस्व अजर्लेख एवं कार्ाभ लर्ीन अजर्लेखों एवं वन जवर्ार् पत्रों के आिार पर र्ह पार्ा र्र्ा जक खसरा क्रमां क 3 (पूवभ में खसरा क्रमां क 6) ग्राम र्ोंदरा रािस्व र्ूजम है ।
उपरोक्तानुसार उल्लेस्थखत तथ्य एवं िानकारी सादर प्रेजषत है ।"
8. This report is based on the letter correspondence and a verification by the Forest Officer, Raisen Van Mandal, and further the Collector has constituted a Committee of three officers to verify the status and it was found that the area does not fall within the forest range. 6 O.A. No.112/2025(CZ) Sunil Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors.
9. The submissions and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3&4 are that as per the Joint Demarcation Panchnama dated 27.04.2018, the territorial boundaries of the subject site were duly delineated through a coordinated exercise undertaken by the Revenue Authorities in conjunction with the Forest Department and upon a meticulous scrutiny of the D.C.R. Registrar, it has been unequivocally ascertained that Khasra No.3 (formerly Khasra No.6), Village Gondara, does not fall within the territorial limits of P.F. 52. It is stated that the Project proponent had duly preferred an application dated 14.12.2007, seeking the grant of a stone-crusher and quarry lease over Government Raisen, bearing Khasra No. 3 admeasuring 2.105 hectares and Pursuant thereto, the Respondent and Forest Department conducted a site inspection and recommended sanction of the lease. Further, vide Letter dated 27.03.2008 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Raisen, a joint site inspection of Khasra No. 3, Village Gondara, admeasuring 6.00 acres, was undertaken by the Range Forest Officer and the Deputy Divisional Forest Officer, Raisen, wherein it was categorically reported that the lease area does not fall within any Reserved or Protected Forest compartment, and that the same lies entirely within Revenue limits. Furthermore, the site is situated 250 metres beyond the notified forest boundary, with no forest offence registered against the Project Proponent. It is stated that No objection existed to the grant of quarry lease for establishing a stone crusher on the lease area; consequently, the quarry lease for establishing a stone crusher on the lease area; consequently, the quarry lease was duly sanctioned in accordance with the application statutory provisions, for 7 O.A. No.112/2025(CZ) Sunil Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. the period 10 years from 08.08.2008 to 07.08.2018 and that the Project Proponent duly submitted a renewal application in respect of the sanctioned lease on 22.08.2017. Thereafter vide letter dated 27.11.2017 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Raisen, a site inspection of Khasra No. 03, Village Gondara, Tehsil Raisen, admeasuring 2.105 hectares, was undertaken by the Range Forest Officer, Raisen and the same, duly corroborated by the Deputy Divisional Forest Officer, categorically establishes that the lease area does not fall within any Reserved or Protected Forest compartment, and is situated entirely within Revenue limits, lying 277 meters away from the boundary or Forest Compartment P.F.-52. The latitude and longitude coordinates of the four corners of the applied area are recorded as under:-
10. It is further argued that thereafter in compliance of the statutory framework and upon due consideration of the inspection reports received as well as the recommendations duly furnished by the Forest Department, the proposal for renewal of the quarry lease was transferred to the Director, Geology and Mining, Bhopal, for approval and consequent thereto, vide Letter dated 18.08.2018 issued by the said authority, the quarry lease stood renewed for an additional tenure of ten years, i.e. from 08.08.2018 to 07.08.2028, subject to the procurement of all requisite statutory permissions and complainces mandated under law. It is also stated that the Applicant Sh. Sunil 8 O.A. No.112/2025(CZ) Sunil Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Kumar, had himself voluntarily approached the competent authority by submitted an application seeking permission for establishment of a stone-crusher unit as well as for grant of a mining lease over the very land which he now seeks to dispute and pursuant to the said application, and upon due verification and satisfaction of the statutory requirements, the competent authority was pleased to grant the mining lease and crusher establishment permission in favour of the applicant vide Order dated 25.01.2008. It is an admitted and undisputed position on record that the applicant continues to carry out mining and crushing operations on the said land up to the year 2018, after which his lease period expired and the same was not renewed. Further, it is manifest from the aforesaid facts and circumstances that the Applicant has approached this Tribunal with unclean hands and in blatant abuse of the process of law and the Applicant, being fully cognizant of the indisputable position that the impugned land does not fall within any forest periphery or protected forest limits, has nevertheless sought to mislead this Hon'ble Tribunal by suppressing material facts. However, the record unequivocaly reflects that his true grievance stems from the non-renewal of his own mining lease, and the present proceedings have been instituted not in furtherance of any public cause, but as a retaliatory and vindictive measure.
11. Before grant of the lease, a report was called from the Forest Officer and vide Annexure-R3/4, the Forest Department has issued 'No Objection' with regard to issue of lease on the above land.
12. Submissions of the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 7 are that Applicant is an Advocate and public spirited citizen, concerned about the environment and the Applicant was discharging his professional 9 O.A. No.112/2025(CZ) Sunil Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. duties in the vicinity of Forest Compartment No. 52, when the Applicant came to learn that there are several stone crushing units and mines in the forest area and accordingly filed the present Original Application. It is submitted that the said fact is blatantly wrong as the Applicant is not an Advocate but a stone crushing operative, who used to operate a stone crusher in the vicinity of the land of the answering respondent and the actual name of the Applicant is Sunil Thakur. The same is evident from the representation which is attached by the Applicant in the Original Application at Page Annexure A-3, page 30, where the Application has been signed by one Mr. Sunil Thakur. It is stated that the stone crusher of the Original Applicant was closed by the Authorities due to instances of illegal mining and the Original Applicant has now approached this Tribunal clearly as a motivated petition, raising false allegations of mining inside Protected Forest, which is clearly in violation of the law as enshrined under Section 18 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, as well a blatant abuse of the judicial process. It is a settled principle of law that when the credentials and bonafides of a litigant approaching a Court are seriously raised, then the same cannot be ignored. Before a litigant is permitted to knock the doors of justice and seek orders that have far reaching effects, the credentials and bonafides of a litigant must be tested. (Refer State of Uttar Pradesh vs Uday Education and Welfare Trust & Anr. [Civil Appeal No. 2407-2412 of 2021); Anand Kumar Jha vs Union of India (Appeal No. 05/2021/EZ).]
13. It is further argued that section 14 clearly specifies the period of limitation of 6 months is to be calculated from the date on which the cause of action first arose. There is no concept of continuous cause of 10 O.A. No.112/2025(CZ) Sunil Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. action under Section 14 as has been clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mantri Techzone v. Forward Foundation and Others [2019(9) FLT 586]. It is stated that in the present case, the Original Applicant waiting for almost two decades to allege that the mining being undertaken on Khasra No.3 is inside the Protected Forest Block 52. The cause of action, if any, arose in 2008 when the said land was leased to the Answering Respondent herein for undertaking stone crushing activities and thus alleging that the said land is part of Protected Forest in 2025, is clearly much beyond the period of 6 months, including the condonable period of 3 months, as specified in the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. In fact, even the limitation period under Section 15 of five years has expired and thus, the present Original Application is not maintainable and completely barred by limitation. The right to challenge the same is inconsistent with the doctrine of estoppel by acquiescence as well. The statutory scheme of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 mandates that any person aggrieved by the grant of an Environmental Clearance must invoke the appellate jurisdiction under Section 16(h) and not the original jurisdiction under Section 14. This position stands authoritatively clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Citizens for Green Doon v. Union of India, Civil Appeal Nos. 6497- 6498 of 2021, wherein the Court upheld the view that a challenge to an Environmental Clearance cannot be entertained in an Original Application and that permitting such a course would amount to circumventing the statutory appeal mechanism prescribed under the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court recognised that where a specific appellate remedy is provided, the same cannot be bypassed by clothing the challenge as an Original Application raising environmental issues. 11 O.A. No.112/2025(CZ) Sunil Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors.
In light of the above settled position of law, the present Original Application, insofar as it seeks to assail the Environmental Clearance, is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected on this ground alone. That Satellite Images are not conclusive evidence of the ground position. This is further clarified in the case of Re: Construction of park at NOIDA near Okhla Bird Sanctuary, (2011) 1 SCC 744. (Refer to Para 20-24 of Re: Construction of park at NOIDA near Okhla Bird Sanctuary, (2011) 1 SCC 744). The Notification dated 26.06.1954 of the Forest Compartment Block No. 52, issued under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, also clarifies that Khasra No.3 in village Gondra is not part of the notified forest block.
14. It is further argued that the Original Applicant has also relied upon a Panchnama dated 29.04.2025 to allege that the Forest Department had conducted a site visit and stated that some activities were found in the forest area. At the outset, the Panchnama fails to showcase whether the same has been prepared by the Forest Department or not as the signatures on the said Panchnama are illegible. It is also not clarified which stone crusher the Panchnama is referring to. The Panchnama finally concludes that further documents are required to verify whether the said stone crusher is working on forest land and that the District Collector in its Affidavit dated 10.10.2025 has clearly stated that the 10.975 ha of land in Khasra No.3 in Gondra village is not part of the Protect Forest Compartment No. 52 and is duly recorded as Government land in the revenue records. The office of the District Collector along with the Forest department officials had also conducted a spot inspection and the same clarified that a joint demarcation exercise was conducted previously and as per the letter dated 12 O.A. No.112/2025(CZ) Sunil Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. 27.03.2008 of Divisional Forest Officer, Raisen, the land was demarcated as Government Land. Further, the stone crushing activities over an area of 5.2 acres on Khasra No. 3 of the Answering Respondent is being undertaken on forest land and not revenue land. Thus, the allegations of the Original Applicant are completely bereft of all merit and the present Original Application should be dismissed with huge costs for alleging baseless violations and filing a motivated Application, for reasons best known to the Original Applicant. The reliance on Panchnama of 29.04.2025 is clearly a manufactured document and cannot be relied upon by this Hon'ble Tribunal. It is stated that the Joint Committee constituted by this Hon'ble Tribunal vide order dated 22.08.2025, has also submitted their report on 11.10.2025 stating that there is a dispute with respect to Khasra No. 3 between the forest and the revenue department. In the humble submission of the Answering Respondent, the Notification dated 26.06.1954 of the Protected Forest Compartment No. 52 along with the submissions of the District Collector clarify that the said area is not part of Protected Forest. The District Collector in his Affidavit dated 10.10.2025 has clarified that based on the letters of the Forest Department as well as revenue land records, Khasra No. 3 is found to be revenue land. This Hon'ble Tribunal may direct the District Collector to place on record the requisite revenue records to clarify the area of land under Khasra No.3, which has been recorded as government land. Arguendo, the said area if forest, the lease for mining has been granted by the Mining Department, after requisite No Objection Certificate from the Forest Department and the same Department cannot go back on their NOC as well as inspection reports to claim that the mining and stone crushing activities 13 O.A. No.112/2025(CZ) Sunil Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors.
are being undertaken on forest land. It is further stated that Answering Respondent obtained the Mining Lease for operating its stone crusher on 17.07.2008. The said Mining Lease clearly states that the Answering Respondent can undertake stone crushing activities over an area of 5.20 acres in Khasra No. 3 for a period of 10 years and also calculates the rent, the security to be deposited for the same as per Madhya Pradesh Minor Mineral Rules of 1996. The Lease also clarifies that the excavation can be undertaken after the demarcation is complete and requisite towers/pillars mark the lease area. The distance from the forest land has been noted as 250 mts. It is also pertinent to note that the said lease copy has been marked to the Forest Department.
15. It is stated that subsequently, the Respondent obtained No Objection Certificate from the Forest Department on 27.12.2007. Subsequently, a detailed report was also obtained from the Divisional Forest Officer on 27.03.2008. The report states that in pursuance of the Application dated 27.12.2007 of Mr. Pradeep, an inspection was conducted of the Khasra No. 3 on 10.03.2008 and it has been observed that towers are constructed on all four sides. The area is revenue land and is not included in Protected Forest or Reserved Forest and the excavation will not impact the nearby area. Thus, the Divisional Forest Officer had also clarified that the land leased out to the Answering Respondent is not Forest land. The Answering Respondent was granted Consent to Establish on 26.04.2008 and Consent to Operate on 03.07.2010. It is pertinent to mention that another inspection was undertaken by the Divisional Forest Officer in the year 2015 and a report was prepared on 29.04.2015, which clarifies again that the forest land is 250 mts away from the lease of the Answering Respondent. The Answering 14 O.A. No.112/2025(CZ) Sunil Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. Respondent had also obtained environmental clearance on 10.05.2016 and 01.10.2018 for operating its stone quarry on Khasra No.3. No Objection Certificate was also obtained from the Tehsildar on 18.09.2017 as well as the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 25.09.2017. The Patwari had also prepared a Panchnama on 31.08.2017. The copy of the Environmental Clearances are available and will be submitted to this Hon'ble Tribunal, if so desired by this Hon'ble Tribunal. It is stated that in 2017, the Divisional forest officer prepared another site inspection report dated 27.11.2017, which clarified that Khasra No. 3 is not located in any Protected Forest or reserve Forest and is on revenue land and there is no forest related offence. In 2018, after a due inspection by the Mining Officer on 09.05.2018, the Mining Lease was renewed on 31.08.2018.
16. It is further argue that the abovementioned facts, specifically the NOC of 2007 by the Forest Department, the Divisional Forest Officer Inspection Reports of 2015 and 2017 as well as the Affidavit of the District Collector, clarifies that no mining has been undertaken by the Answering Respondent herein on Forest Land. In fact, the Notification of 26.06.1954 also clarifies that Khasra No. 3 is not part of the records mentioned in the said Notification for the Protected Forest Compartment No. 52. Thus, any claims of the said Khasra No. 3 being on forest land are baseless in facts and law and the present Original Application should be dismissed for want of merit and that the Answering Respondent has placed before this Tribunal a documentary record of unbroken consistency spanning seventy-three years (1952-2025), establishing a strong and conclusive evidence that Khasra No. 3, Village Gondra has never been deemed forest land. The Answering Respondent 15 O.A. No.112/2025(CZ) Sunil Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. is undertaking mining strictly in accordance with the law and the crushing activities were commenced after the No Objection Certificate of the Forest Department in the year 2007. In fact, subsequently there have been no inspections by the Forest Department in the year 2015 and 2017. However, the said inspection reports of the Divisional Forest Officer clarify that the said land is not part of the Protected Forest Compartment No.52. In fact, the latest affidavit of the District Collector also clarifies that the land is recorded in the revenue records as government land and is not part of the Protected Forest land notification and that at the time of obtaining Environmental Clearance for mining leases less than 5 ha, the EIA Amendment Notification of 15.01.2016 mandated obtaining Environmental Clearance from DEIAA. Accordingly, the Answering Respondent had obtained Environmental Clearance from DEIAA on 10.05.2016. Subsequently, the said requirement was changed by the NGT in the case of Satendra Pandey vide Judgment dated 31.09.2018. In accordance with the said directions, the Answering Respondent had submitted its application for reappraisal on 04.12.2023 and has not undertaken any mining activities due to the pendency of the said application. However, it is pertinent to mention that due to lack of any procedural clarifications from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change for the requirement of reappraisal by SEIAA of ECs by granted by DEIAA, this Tribunal vide Judgment dated 08.08.2024 in the case of Jayant Kumar v. MOEF&CC & Others directed the MoEF&CC to allow mining leases operating under valid ECs granted by DEIAA and for the same to be reappraised within a period of three months. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has extended the said timeline till September 2025, vide 16 O.A. No.112/2025(CZ) Sunil Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Orders dated 12.11.2024, 27.03.2025, 22.05.2025 and 31.07.2025 in the case of Rajiv Suri v. Union of India and Others [Civil Appeal No. 3799 of 2019]. Thus, the Answering Respondent was operating with valid environmental clearances of DEIAA as the reappraisal timeline had been increased. It is also pertinent to mention that any challenge to an environmental clearance can only be undertaken in an Appeal under Section 16(h) of the NGT Act, 2010 and is not maintainable in the present Original Application. Furthermore, the finding proceeds on a fundamental misapprehension of the statutory regime applicable at the relevant time. The said contention of the applicant's insistence on SEAC/SEIAA approval applies a subsequent procedural requirement retrospectively, which is inconsistent with the law. It is hereby clarified in the case of M. Rajendran & Ors. v. M/s KPK Oils and Proteins India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2025 that unless a contrary intention appears, a legislation is presumed not to be intended to have retrospective operation. Additionally, the Applicant herein is prima facie barred from challenging the environment clearance in an original application. The contents of Para 13-14 are reiterated herein and not repeated for the sake of brevity. Furthermore, the Joint Committee Report in para 1 has clearly recorded the inconsistencies between revenue and forest maps with the respect to the boundary line. The same has been elaborated upon in para 17 and not reiterated herein for the sake of brevity. (Refer to Para 189, M. Rajendran & Ors. v. M/s KPK Oils and Proteins India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2025 INSC 1137).
17. It is further argued that the Applicant/Complainant has moved own representation who used to own and operate a stone crusher on the land adjacent to the land of the Respondent which was closed down a 17 O.A. No.112/2025(CZ) Sunil Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. few years ago due to non-compliances and due to these reasons the said compliant has been filed without any basis.
18. In view of the above discussion, report of the Joint Committee, report of the Collector concerned and report of the Forest Department, the area does not fall within the forest category and No Objection Certificate has been issued by the Department concerned for allotment of land for mining purposes and no such violations have been found. So far as the Environmental Clearance is concerned, it is governed by the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Civil Appeal No.3799-3800 of 2019 (Union of India Vs, Rajeev Soori & Ors.), vide order dated 26.11.2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has pass an order as follows:-
"...............x..............x...............x............x...........................
Noting the aforesaid submission, we dispose of these applications by directing SEIAA to consider the applications filed by the applicants for re-appraisal of Environment Clearance issued by District Environment Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA), whose mining leases were restored in March, 2025.
It is needless to observe that the consideration to be made by SEIAA shall be on the merits of each application and in accordance with law.
The applications are accordingly disposed of."
19. Even though the mining lease sanctioned to the Project Proponent does not fall within the forest area but during arguments the issue of illegal mining in PF 52 has been raised by Applicant. Hence, the Tribunal consider it appropriate to direct the Divisional Forest Officer, Raisen, to verify the PF 52 area entirely through Gazetted Officer under the control and if any illegal mining is found inside the forest area, necessary actions may be taken as per Act/Rules and to submit the compliance 18 O.A. No.112/2025(CZ) Sunil Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. report to the Ld. Registrar, National Green Tribunal, Central Zone Bench, Bhopal, within one month, without fail.
20. In light of above facts, since no violation has been found, thus, no further action is required. However, the matter of the consideration of Environmental Clearance shall be governed by the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted above.
21. With these observations, the Original Application No.112/2025(CZ) stands disposed of.
Sheo Kumar Singh, JM Sudhir Kumar Chaturvedi, EM 06th February, 2026, O.A. No.112/2025(CZ) AK&ID 19 O.A. No.112/2025(CZ) Sunil Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors.