Environment & Land News

NGT Seeks Delhi Govt Response On Lawyer's Plea Over Deteriorating Road Infrastructure In Burari

Environmental Clearance, Pollution Control Board Approval Not Mandatory For Essentiality Certificate Of Medical Institution: Madras High Court

LiveLaw Academy Launches Capsule Course on Mergers and Acquisitions

Solatium & Interest For Land Acquisition Under National Highways Act To Be Computed As Per 1894 Act For Pre-2015 Awards : Supreme Court

Prior Land Possession Not Mandatory To Apply For Environmental Clearance For Bio-Medical Waste Facilities : Supreme Court

'False Allegations': Gujarat High Court Fines PIL Litigant ₹1 Lakh For Seeking Closure Of Industry Over Environmental Violations

Undermining The Law

Bombay High Court Upholds Land Acquisition For Dr BR Ambedkar's Mural Construction, Calls It 'Public Purpose'

'Elephants Can't Be Displaced': Karnataka High Court Quashes Land Acquisition For Housing Project In Bannerghatta National Park

Journalists Are 'Eyes & Ears Of Public', Can Inform Collector About Encroachments: Rajasthan High Court

NGT To Host International Conference On 'The Future Of Environemnt & Climate Dynamics 2026'

3 NGT Benches May Shut Down : Bar Association Tells Supreme Court, Seeks Urgent Extension Of Members' Tenure

The NGT Bar Association sought an urgent hearing before September 8, the date on which the members' term is set to expire.

CJI Surya Kant Cites Judgment In Delhi Tree-Felling Case As Example Of 'Judicial Creativity' Balancing Development & Environment

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant recently cited the Supreme Court judgment passed by a bench led by him in the Delhi Ridge illegal tree-felling case as an example of “judicial creativity” to balance environmental protection with developmental needs. Addressing the High-Level Commonwealth Policy Dialogue on Climate Justice at the Commonwealth Secretariat in London on August 28, the CJI referred to Bindu Kapurea v. Subhashish Panda & Ors., in which the bench led by him dealt with the illegal felling of protected trees for a road leading to the Central Armed Police Forces Institute of Medical Sciences (CAPFIMS) paramilitary hospital. The CJI referred to the case while explaining how courts can respond when environmental protection and developmental requirements appear to conflict. “Courts must be willing to search for solutions that protect the environment without losing sight of the legitimate needs of development, and to recognise that the two need not always be cast as choices in which one must defeat the other,” he said. The CJI said that instead of simply halting the road, the Court ordered extensive compensatory afforestation. He said the Court continued to monitor the afforestation through periodic reports. “In place of simply halting the road, we ordered extensive compensatory afforestation instead. And I am proud to say that we did not stop there. In fact, we are still monitoring that afforestation today, through periodic reports filed before this Court, because a sapling planted and then forgotten is no remedy at all. It was, I think, a small illustration of a larger ideal that development and preservation do not always have to stand on opposite sides of the scales. Sometimes, the task of a Court is to find the third way to promote both routes through judicial creativity,” he said. The case arose from the felling of trees in the Delhi Ridge for a road widening project to facilitate access to the Central Armed Police Forces Institute of Medical Sciences (CAPF

2026 LiveLaw (SC) 867 | WILDLIFE RESCUE AND REHABILITATION CENTRE AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

'Treat Elephant Like Deity, Not Servant': Supreme Court Issues Directions To Ensure Welfare Of Captive Elephants

National Highways Act | Reference Court Can Decide Title Dispute While Determining Entitlement To Land Acquisition Compensation: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court has held that where a dispute arises as to entitlement to compensation or its apportionment under the National Highways Act, 1956, the Reference Court under Section 3H(4) can incidentally decide questions of title. Justice Devashis Baruah observed, “In fact, in a proceedings under Section 3H (4) of the Act of 1956, the Reference Court is equipped with the jurisdiction to incidentally decide the questions of title for determining entitlement to the compensation or apportionment of the compensation.” The observation came in a writ petition assailing a Speaking Order passed by the Additional District Commissioner, Cachar, and seeking a direction upon the authorities to dispose of the petitioners' representations. The dispute arose from acquisition proceedings initiated under the National Highways Act for building, widening/four-laning, maintenance, management and operation of NH-306 in Cachar district. The names of the private respondents and their predecessors appeared in the notification issued under Section 3D, while the petitioners' names did not. The Central Government had already deposited the compensation determined under Section 3G for onward disbursement to the persons interested. The petitioners, claiming rights over the land, approached the Competent Authority disputing the private respondents' entitlement and claiming apportionment of the compensation. The Competent Authority directed that 50% of the zirat compensation (statutory payment for the loss of produce, trees, or structures, separate from the actual market value of the land itself) be paid to the private respondents, whose names featured in the award and who had been dispossessed from the land, so as to enable them to shift from the site. The remaining 50% was to be deposited before the District and Sessions Judge, Silchar. The petitioners challenged this action on the basis that they had filed a suit claiming right, title and interest, and therefore no payment should be made

Telangana High Court Directs Forest Officials Not To Interfere With Mosque, Madrasa At Ananthagiri Hills Without Due Process

The Telangana High Court has directed Forest Department officials not to interfere with the peaceful possession, administration and management of a mosque and madrasa situated at Ananthagiri Hills in Vikarabad District without following due process of law. The Court, however, clarified that its order cannot be used to encroach upon any Reserve Forest area and the forest officials can take appropriate action in case of any encroachment on such land.� Justice Surepalli Nanda passed the order after taking note of the Forest Department's specific stand that its officials had neither interfered with the lawful possession or religious activities of the institution nor attempted to dispossess its Mutawalli. The Court directed: “ This Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent forest officials not to interfere with the peaceful possession, administration, management and enjoyment of Sunni Masjid Osmania and Deeni Madarsa, situated at Ananthagiri hills, Vikarabad District, without following due process of law. It is further observed that under the guise of the present order, passed in the present writ petition, the Sunni Masjid Osmania and Deeni Madarsa, situated at Ananthagiri hills, Vikarabad District, shall not encroach upon any Reserve Forest area.” The Court further made it clear that if there is any encroachment upon Reserve Forest land, the Forest Department would remain free to initiate appropriate action against the persons concerned in accordance with law, including under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 and other relevant laws. The writ petition was filed by the Mutawalli of Sunni Masjid Osmania and Deeni Madarsa. He alleged that Forest Department officials were interfering with the possession, administration and management of the institution without issuing any statutory notice or following due process. The petitioner stated that the mosque and madrasa were religious and charitable institutions at Ananthagiri Hills and had been conducting daily prayers, imp

Extension Of Land Acquisition Timeline Should Also Extend Landowners' Time To File Objections: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court has held that when authorities extend the timeline for land acquisition proceedings, the timeline available to landowners to file objections must also run parallel with the extended period. The Court said that an extension of the acquisition proceedings cannot extinguish the landowners' right to object. Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar made the observation while setting aside a final award, insofar as nine landowners were concerned, for acquisition of their lands for infrastructural development around the Yadadri Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple. The Court found that the authorities had failed to consider both sets of objections filed by the petitioners and therefore did not follow the procedure under Section 15 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act). The Court observed: “It is to be noted that since the timeline for the acquisition proceedings were extended by the respondent authorities, the timeline to file objections must also run parallel with the extended timeline for the declaration to enable the petitioners to make objections during the extended timeline. It is the duty of the State to conduct the acquisition efficiently within the extended timelines as such the petitioners would have a right for efficient and expeditious process in the present land acquisition proceedings. Thus, this Court is of the view that both set of objections filed by the petitioners on 29.09.2021 and 15.11.2022 ought to have been considered by the Respondent authorities while passing the post-hearing orders.” The dispute concerned lands at Yadagiripalli Village. The petitioners claimed ownership over different portions of the land through registered sale deeds. Some of the lands had earlier been included in acquisition proceedings initiated for development around the Yadagirigutta Temple. A fresh preliminary notification under Section 11(1) of the RFCTLARR Act was issued on A

Land Acquisition Illegal If Known Owners Are Omitted, Right To Object Under S.5-A Dispensed Without Genuine Urgency: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court has set aside land acquisition proceedings for road widening at Liberty Cross Roads, Hyderabad, after finding that the authorities omitted the names of admittedly known co-owners from the acquisition proceedings and invoked the urgency provision under Land Acquisition Act without demonstrating genuine urgency to dispense with their right to object. For context, Section 4(1) provides for a preliminary notification expressing the Government's intention to acquire land for a public purpose. Section 5-A gives interested persons the right to object and be heard.Section 17 deals with urgent acquisitions: Section 17(1) permits possession before an award in cases of urgency, while Section 17(4) separately empowers the Government to dispense with the Section 5-A enquiry where the urgency provisions apply. Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy held that the authorities failed to strictly comply with the mandatory safeguards under the 1894 Act. The Court said that omission of known owners from the Section 4(1) notification could not be treated as a mere procedural irregularity. It further held that the extraordinary power under Section 17 could not be invoked without material establishing genuine urgency warranting deprivation of the Section 5-A enquiry. It said: “Tested on the aforesaid principles, this Court finds that the respondents have failed to demonstrate strict compliance with the mandatory safeguards prescribed under the Act, 1894. The omission to disclose the petitioners' names despite their admitted ownership and the unjustified invocation of Section 17 dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A render the impugned acquisition proceedings legally unsustainable.” The petitioners were co-owners of property situated at Liberty Cross Roads, Himayatnagar. While granting them building permission in 2003, the Municipal Corporation had required them to surrender around 221 square yards falling within the proposed road-widening and junction-improvemen

Parliamentary panel asks NGT to more proactively use powers on critical environmental concerns

The committee has also recommended "stronger follow-up" by the tribunal and the Environment Ministry through regular action-taken reports, effective use of joint committees, clear fixing of responsibility and better ways to ensure that NGT orders are implemented promptly.

New Mining Law: Test Of Sustainable Federalism

The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026, which received Presidential assent on August 17, is easy to view as another technical amendment concerning mining taxation. That would perhaps be an incomplete reading. Mining sits at the beginning of several economic activities that we generally discuss separately—steel, cement, infrastructure, manufacturing, transport and, increasingly, the energy transition. What happens to the cost and availability of minerals does not remain within the boundaries of a mine. It travels across industries. The amendment seeks to bring greater predictability to this area by placing conditions on the manner in which States can impose taxes, cesses and other levies on mineral rights and mineral-bearing land. The concern behind the change is understandable. Mining requires large investment, the life of a project may run into decades and a mineral deposit cannot be relocated merely because the tax environment changes. The government has argued that multiple levies, different rates across States and taxes introduced after mining operations have commenced create uncertainty and may even make some projects commercially unviable. Yet, the issue is not as simple as making mining less costly. Natural resources belong to a larger economic and social setting. The real policy question is whether India can provide stability to investors without weakening the legitimate interests of the States in which those resources are located. The amendment makes a noticeable departure from the earlier legal position. As a snapshot, Section 2 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 has been enlarged so that mineral-bearing land also comes within the field of Union regulation, and Section 3 now provides a statutory meaning for the expression. The more consequential change is the introduction of Section 9D. Until now, the Act did not contain such a specific provision governing the manner in which States could impo