NGT Refuses Construction Ban in Chandanpura, But Directs Precautionary Environmental Planning in Tiger-Frequented Area
Pranav B Prem
In a recent judgment, the Central Zone Bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) disposed of a petition filed by environmental activist Rashid Noor Khan, who had sought a complete ban on construction activities in the Chandanpura area of Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner had argued that the area, located between the Kaliyasot and Kerwa dam sites, functions as a tiger habitat and a vital breeding ground for the species. However, the tribunal held that it could not declare the area a ‘tiger reserve’ or stop ongoing development activities, given that the area was already home to 50 to 60 residential colonies and was not notified as a protected forest under applicable environmental laws.
The bench, comprising Judicial Member Justice Sheo Kumar Singh and Expert Member Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, noted that the tribunal was not empowered to direct the Forest Department to notify an area as a ‘tiger reserve’ when no such legal status had been granted under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. The tribunal observed that the region had already witnessed substantial development, including the approval of residential colonies by competent district authorities, and hence the forest department could not be forced to designate it as a protected area.
Khan, in his plea, contended that increased human activities such as construction projects were disturbing the delicate ecological balance of the Chandanpura forest region. He highlighted that the area is ecologically significant and serves as a natural corridor for tigers and other wildlife between the Kaliyasot and Kerwa forest zones. He also claimed that the Chandanpura forest area had already been notified as a 'protected forest', and thus came under the regulatory protection of multiple environmental laws, including the Forest Protection Act, the Environmental Protection Act, the Biodiversity Act, and the Wildlife Protection Act.
While acknowledging the concerns raised by the petitioner, the tribunal clarified that the area in question had not been officially notified as a protected forest under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. Hence, the NGT could not enforce conservation mechanisms as sought by the petitioner. The bench remarked: “The area has not been notified under the provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. Thus, this Tribunal cannot enforce it, and in the area where more than 50 to 60 colonies have been developed, after due approval of the district administration and competent authorities, we cannot direct the Department of Forests for its notification as a tiger reserve of the ‘civilian abadi’.”
The tribunal also referred to the report submitted by the committee appointed to examine the issues raised in the petition. Based on the findings, the tribunal concluded that precautionary steps had already been taken by authorities to mitigate human-wildlife conflict. These include the installation of warning boards and fencing along boundaries to reduce tiger-human encounters.
Nonetheless, the tribunal issued significant directions to ensure that future developmental activities are not undertaken without due consideration of environmental implications. The tribunal emphasized that the Department of Town and Country Planning must incorporate the recommendations of the Forest Department and other relevant agencies while granting approvals for any infrastructure or residential projects in tiger-frequented areas. The judgment reads: “In view of the increasing number of residential plots and houses, we direct the Department of Town and Country Planning that while planning for any development infrastructure projects and permitting residential complexes, the department should ensure the recommendations of the forest department and related departments. The rules of sustainable development and environmental planning must be taken into account for development in the region.”
The bench also observed that the region lies close to a tiger reserve and noted the frequent movement of tigers and their cubs in and around the Chandanpura forest area. Therefore, any future planning should be carried out with heightened sensitivity toward preserving wildlife corridors and minimizing human-tiger conflict. Furthermore, the tribunal directed the state government and the forest department to actively consider the recommendations made by the committee constituted in the matter.
Khan had argued that the western ring-road project and other developmental interventions were fragmenting the natural corridor of the tigers and gradually rendering their breeding grounds inaccessible. He warned that such continuous human interference could lead to the complete displacement of tigers from this region.
Despite these concerns, the tribunal held that while the petitioner's apprehensions were genuine, the scope of intervention under the NGT's jurisdiction was limited to existing legal frameworks. As the area had not been declared a tiger reserve or protected forest by the government, the tribunal could not impose a blanket construction ban. The petition was thus disposed of with directions to ensure environmentally responsible planning in future projects and to take necessary precautions to protect wildlife movement in the region.
Appearance
For the Applicant(s): Mr. Yashdeep Singh Thakur, Adv. (with Mr. Aakash Ambedkar, Adv., Mr. Rashid Noor Khan – In person)
For the Respondents(s): Mr. Enosh George Carlo, Adv. Ms. Parul Bhadoria, Adv. (with Mr. Gaurvanvit Jain, Adv.) Mr. Prashant M. Harne, Adv. (with Mr. Mehul Bhardwaj, Adv.) Ms. Disha Chouksey, Adv. (for Ms. Gunjan Chowksey, Adv. Mr. Swapnil Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Shantanoo Saxena, Adv. (with Ms. Amrita Mishra, Adv.) Ms. Diksha Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Shrivastav, Adv.
Cause Title: Rashid Noor Khan V. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & 11 Ors.
Case No: Original Application No. 160/2024(CZ)
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sheo Kumar Singh [Judicial Member], Hon'ble Dr. Vijay Kulkarni [Expert Member]
[Read/Download order]
