Subscribe
The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), Chandigarh, June 8, 2026 filed its report addressing unauthorised construction activities on the periphery of Chandigarh, specifically in Punjab areas abutting forest lands.
The report by MoEFCC, Chandigarh stated that land is a subject matter of the state government. The forest areas and legal boundaries are determined and maintained by the concerned state government. As the repository of land records, the state government has the primary responsibility to determine the status of any parcel of land, giving due regard to gazette notifications, provisions under state and central acts and concerned judgments and directions of the Supreme Court. The state government must determine any violation of the provisions of central and state laws.
The report further stated that prior approval of the central government under section 2 (1) of the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980 is mandatory to carry out any non-forest activity on forest land.
The MoEFCC vide letter, July 24, 2009 granted stage II / final approval for the delisting of 55,339.95 hectares of cultivated and habitation area closed under the Punjab Land Preservation Act (PLPS), 1900. This approval was subject to three mandatory and non-negotiable conditions:
1. The state government should ensure that no commercial activities are permitted on such de-listed land,
2. The de-listed land should only be used for bonafide use of agriculture and for sustaining the livelihood of the people/owner of the land,
3. The third condition was if inadvertently, any notified forest areas were included, such areas should not be deemed to have been de-listed from the list of forest areas of the state.
Thus, the allegations in the application regarding unauthorised development in the Chandigarh periphery directly concern the potential violation of the conditions mentioned in the 2009 delisting approval. "Any conversion of these delisted areas into unauthorised colonies or commercial hubs stands ultra vires".
In view of the above concerns, the Ministry vide letter dated December 17, 2025, requested the state government of Punjab to submit a factual report along with documentary evidence on the contentions raised. The Ministry further requested to be informed if any violations of the Van Adhiniyam, 1980 have been reported in the mentioned sites.
Greater Mohali Area Development Authority has filed a status report indicating that action has been initiated against unauthorised constructions in villages like Mirzapur, Jayanti Majri, Karoran and Siswan. Additionally, 92 new show cause notices have been issued since September 15, 2025 to curb illegal development in the periphery.
The report stated that the requirement of obtaining prior environmental clearance under the EIA Notification, 2006 arises only in cases where a building and construction project or township and area development project meets the prescribed threshold.
"The conditions of the original delisting must be upheld to prevent commercialisation of protected landscapes," said the report.
The Thane Municipal Corporation (TMC) is concretising natural streams by falsely misrepresenting natural stream as mere stormwater drains, stated the affidavit filed on June 8, 2026 by Prashant Vasant Mahadik, the applicant in response to the joint committee report of January 20, 2026.
The applicant stated that standard practice mandates constructing stormwater drains on both sides of a road, based on a comprehensive study of the watershed area surrounding the roadway. However, this is a natural stream number 11 / E, and it originates within the Sanjay Gandhi National Park. This natural watercourse is perennial, and during the monsoon season, water flows through it under immense hydraulic pressure.
To proceed with construction by falsely misrepresenting this natural stream as a mere storm water drain, and by formulating a hydraulic design based solely on the watershed area of a 400 meter stretch of road, "without conducting a hydraulic testing of the water flow originating from the Sanjay Gandhi National Park and the surrounding vicinity constitutes nothing short of outright deception".
The applicant submitted that significant differences exist between storm water drains and natural streams and that TMC is attempting to conflate the two and mislead the court regarding the impact of their concretisation of the nallahs and drains highlighted in the application.
Stormwater drains are man-made systems constructed and maintained by local governments such as municipal corporations designed to drain rainwater to prevent water stagnation on roads, in residential settlements, and within the city. Typically, the layout of stormwater drains is designed according to specific geographical parameters.
In contrast, natural streams formed over thousands of years through the erosive forces of flowing water. These natural streams evolved in response to the region's topography, rainfall patterns, land gradients, and other geographical conditions; consequently, these channels are recognised as natural waterways.
It is submitted that the joint committee report has mentioned that the slabs have been laid on the natural drains. Whereas no information has been provided regarding the original width of the drain before its construction. Placing slabs on natural drains makes it difficult to clean the drains during the monsoons, as a result of which the water carrying capacity of the drain decreases or if the drains are blocked, the water discharge enters the urban settlements in the area which causes flooding.
Covering the streams with an RCC slab makes effective mechanical cleaning and desilting next to impossible. Silt and garbage will accumulate within the confined channel reducing its capacity over time and becoming inaccessible for removal. This creates long-term maintenance issues and a guaranteed future flooding hazard as well as serious health issues.
The applicant denies that hydraulic analysis has been carried effectively by the Joint Committee as there is no reference to drainage area, rainfall intensity, runoff coefficient, slope, Manning's coefficient, velocity and carrying capacity.
The Public Works Department (PWD), Dhule, Maharashtra undertaking construction of a bridge within the prohibited zone (blue flood line) of River Panzara violates rules, stated the rejoinder by the applicant, Narendra Gotu Pardeshi, dated June 8, 2026.
The National Green Tribunal (NGT) directed on April 7, 2026, that notices be issued to the authorities to file their responses. Accordingly, PWD Dhule, filed its reply affidavit dated June 3, 2026. The applicant has sought to respond to the contentions raised in the PWD reply.
The reply stated that construction was stayed by the NGT order of April 30, 2026 which directed that no construction should occur within the riverbed and the blue flood line of River Panzara until the next hearing date. PWD Dhule filed an interim application seeking vacation of the order.
PWD, in its reply affidavit, had said that "apart from construction of the pedestrian bridge in the riverbed, there is no other proposed construction in the riverbed". This amounts to a denial that the Shaktipeeth / temple construction forms part of the riverbed works.
This is directly controverted by the letter August 18, 2025 sent by the Water Resources Department (WRD) to PWD, which quotes that the PWD itself submitted a proposal seeking approval of WRD for construction of inter alia “construction of a circular bridge for 51 Shaktipeeth replicas and construction of 5 small temples on the same”. Therefore, PWD is evidently misleading the court.
The applicant stated that the WRD floodline regulatory framework does not permit the project construction. The concerned authorities misread WRD government circulars (September 21, 1989 and May 3, 2018) as conferring a permission to construct within the prohibited zone (blue flood line) subject to conditions. This "interpretation is fundamentally and demonstrably incorrect".
The WRD circular of September 21, 1989 defines the prohibited zone as the "main riverbed and the area on both banks required to carry the controlled discharge… This zone should be left open and can be used for gardens, play grounds or light crops (only where the easement right to take such crops is established)."
The construction of a 230-metre pedestrian bridge on 29 foundation piers sunk into the living riverbed is self-evidently irreconcilable with the use of land as a garden, playground, or for cultivation of light crops.
The WRD circular of May 3, 2018 stated that the "prohibitive zone can be used only in the form of open land, such as gardens, play grounds, light crops; where there is established easement right to take crops (for instance, watermelons, musk melons as well as public toilets and sewage discharge facilities), so that there will not be any obstruction to the flow of the river, there will not be reduction in the carrying capacity of the river and there will not be any change in the cross section of the river".
The impugned pedestrian bridge is not a garden, playgrounds, light crop, public toilet or sewage discharge. It is a permanent civil structure with foundation piers penetrating the riverbed.
The bridge runs parallel to the riverbank, around 30 metres from it and within the floodplain. A bridge parallel to the river — rather than crossing it — is self-evidently not required to be located within the riverbed. Its entire function (pedestrian movement along the bank) could be served by a pathway constructed on the riverbank above the flood line, without any incursion into the prohibited zone.
"The PWD's own choice to place the structure 30 metres into the floodplain rather than on the bank above the flood line is a discretionary design decision, not an unavoidable necessity."
The project includes 51 Shaktipeeth replicas and 5 small temples on the bridge structure. This component, described in the Irrigation Department's NOC letter of August 18, 2025 is not essential public infrastructure by any standard. The construction of replica religious monuments within the active floodplain of a perennial river cannot conceivably satisfy the "essential and unavoidable" threshold of the WRD GR framework.
Further, the project is funded under a government beautification scheme. The authorities' documents reveal that the project is part of an urban beautification and tourism development initiative - not a core public infrastructure necessity like a road bridge, water supply pipeline, or flood control infrastructure.
The reply stated that there are critical deficiencies in the hydraulic calculations submitted by the PWD, Dhule. That data and hydrological calculations were certified entirely by PWD officers, without any independent verification by the Irrigation Department or any other neutral technical authority. PWD, Dhule, has presented no explanation for why the Irrigation Department — the statutorily designated authority for flood line determinations and hydraulic assessments under the WRD framework — was not involved in certifying the hydrological data.
