In a significant order, the National Green Tribunal on October 9, 2026, directed that the District Survey Reports for Basti and Shamli districts in Uttar Pradesh be set aside.
The tribunal noted that, in the case of Basti district, no replenishment study had admittedly been conducted before the District Survey Report was prepared.
In the case of Shamli district, although a replenishment study had been conducted, it was admittedly not placed before the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee and the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Uttar Pradesh, when the District Survey Report was approved in a meeting held on August 1, 2024.
The SEIAA, Uttar Pradesh, had “mechanically approved” the District Survey Reports of Shamli and Basti without ascertaining whether a replenishment study had been conducted before the reports were prepared, and whether the reports were based on material gathered and recorded in the replenishment study, the NGT order stated.
The bench of Justice Prakash Shrivastava said the approval of the District Survey Reports for Basti and Shamli could not be sustained and should be set aside, as it “suffers from the defect of non-application of mind”.
Since the authorities maintained that a replenishment study had been conducted for Shamli district, the tribunal directed SEAC and SEIAA, Uttar Pradesh, to reappraise the District Survey Report for Shamli in light of the study.
While reappraising the Shamli report, SEAC and SEIAA must duly consider the anomalies and objections pointed out by the applicant and recorded in the NGT order, the tribunal said.
In the case of Basti district, since no replenishment study was admittedly conducted, the tribunal said the District Survey Report could not be sustained and should be set aside, given the settled legal position on the mandatory requirement of a replenishment study for preparing such reports.
The National Green Tribunal on October 6, 2026, directed the constitution of a joint committee to examine allegations of unauthorised and illegal structures, buildings, embankments and camping facilities allegedly erected by Balason Blues Resort and Camping at Damfetar, Dudhia, in Kurseong circle of Darjeeling district, West Bengal.
The committee has been directed to submit its report within two months. The tribunal will next take up the matter on December 8, 2026.
The NGT’s eastern bench also directed that notices be issued to the West Bengal Pollution Control Board, the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, West Bengal, and Balason Blues Resort and Camping, among others.
The applicant submitted that the Balason river basin at Dudhia is a highly dynamic, ecologically fragile and geomorphologically vulnerable ecosystem that cannot withstand permanent concrete construction, riverbed excavation and channel constriction without triggering serious hydrological failures.
The applicant alleged that Balason Blues Resort and Camping had not obtained the mandatory statutory consents from the West Bengal Pollution Control Board and was operating in violation of Sections 24, 25 and 26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.
The application also alleged that the resort had constructed permanent commercial infrastructure on the active char lands and riverbed of the Balason river without prior approval from the Union government, in violation of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. It further alleged unauthorised diversion of riverine forest ecosystems for commercial purposes.
The National Green Tribunal on October 6, 2026, directed the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Head of Forest Force, Odisha, to submit a response to a complaint concerning alleged unauthorised and illegal construction of a park and resort at Kotagada village in Nayagarh district, Odisha.
Others directed to file responses included the District Collector, Nayagarh; the Divisional Forest Officer, Khordha; and Jay Santhoshi Maa Hill Side Park and Resorts, the project proponent.
The tribunal also directed the constitution of a joint committee comprising representatives of the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Central), Regional Office of the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Bhubaneswar; the Odisha State Pollution Control Board; the District Magistrate / Collector, Nayagarh; and the Divisional Forest Officer, Khordha.
The committee was directed to visit the site, examine the applicant’s grievances, involve the applicant and the representative of the project proponent, verify the factual position and suggest appropriate remedial action.
The application alleged that the project proponent had cut trees over more than 1.5 acres of forest land. It also alleged that a waterbody measuring more than two acres had been illegally encroached upon.
The applicant said the forest land and waterbody were being used for commercial purposes in violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, which requires prior approval from the Union government for any non-forest use.
The application also stated that the project proponent had not obtained consent to establish and consent to operate from the Odisha State Pollution Control Board.