The National Green Tribunal has delivered a stern rebuke to state authorities for persistent inaction against illegal encroachments on the Kaliasot and Kerwa wetlands in Bhopal, affirming that custodianship of public land is not a ceremonial duty but a non-negotiable constitutional obligation. The judgment underscores that environmental degradation stemming from state apathy cannot be tolerated under the guise of procedural delay or administrative inertia.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applications before the National Green Tribunal allege widespread, unauthorized construction and land encroachment on the Kaliasot and Kerwa reservoirs - ecologically sensitive wetlands designated under the Bhopal Master Plan, 2005. These encroachments have led to the destruction of the adjacent Botanical Garden and Regional Garden green belts, threatening the habitat of endangered aquatic species including gharials, crocodiles, and tortoises. The encroachments have also forced these animals into residential zones, creating a public safety hazard.
Procedural History
The case has progressed through multiple hearings and directives:
- September 2023: Tribunal issued detailed directions seeking reports on demarcation, encroachments, sewage discharge, and green belt status.
- September 2025: Tribunal observed that despite repeated orders, no effective action had been taken. The Collector’s report confirmed 97 encroachments, 84 on government land.
- November 2025: Authorities submitted partial compliance, claiming some removals and pending actions, but failed to provide time-bound, area-wise reports as mandated.
- December 2025: Tribunal found no compliance with prior orders and noted new encroachments were occurring.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought immediate removal of all encroachments, restoration of wetland boundaries, cessation of untreated sewage discharge, and accountability of negligent officials. He also requested that interveners be permitted to participate in proceedings to assist in environmental protection.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether public authorities entrusted with the custodianship of state land and wetlands can evade their statutory and constitutional duty to protect such property merely due to administrative delay, lack of resources, or political expediency.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The applicant argued that the State’s inaction violates Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a healthy environment as part of the right to life. He cited M.C. Mehta v. Union of India to assert that environmental degradation caused by state negligence is actionable before the NGT. He emphasized that repeated directions since 2023 had been ignored, and the failure to demarcate boundaries or install fencing constituted active neglect.
For the Respondent
The State’s counsel conceded procedural delays but contended that removals were underway under Section 248 of the Land Revenue Act and Section 307(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. They argued that legal processes, including notices and appeals, take time and that the authorities were not in willful defiance but constrained by bureaucratic and judicial procedures.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal rejected the State’s justification of procedural delay as a shield for inaction. It held that custodianship of public property is a fiduciary duty, not a discretionary power. The Court emphasized that the State, as trustee of natural resources, cannot abdicate its responsibility under the Public Trust Doctrine, recognized in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath.
"It is a settled law that for the negligence of all those to whom public duties have been entrusted, can never be allowed to cause public mischief."
The Tribunal found that the authorities had not merely failed to act - they had systematically misrepresented compliance. The submission of repetitive, non-actionable reports constituted a form of administrative fraud. The Court further held that the failure to demarcate boundaries, install fencing, or treat sewage was not a technical lapse but a breach of environmental governance norms under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
The Tribunal also clarified that while civil courts determine title disputes, the NGT’s mandate is to enforce environmental compliance. Interveners were permitted to assist in monitoring encroachments, not to litigate ownership.
The Verdict
The applicant prevailed. The National Green Tribunal held that public authorities have a non-delegable duty to protect wetlands and state land from encroachment, and that administrative delay cannot justify environmental harm. The Tribunal directed immediate removal of encroachments, fortnightly reporting, departmental inquiries into official negligence, and personal supervision by senior officials.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Custodianship Is a Non-Delegable Duty
- Practitioners must now argue that any delay in removing encroachments on public land or wetlands constitutes a violation of constitutional environmental obligations, regardless of pending litigation or bureaucratic hurdles.
- Environmental petitions can be filed not just for pollution, but for state inaction that enables ecological degradation.
Fortnightly Reporting Is Mandatory
- Authorities must now submit detailed, area-wise, time-bound compliance reports to environmental tribunals - not generic summaries.
- Failure to comply with such directives may trigger contempt proceedings or direct accountability measures against officials.
Departmental Inquiry Is a Valid Remedy
-
Tribunals may now order confidential departmental inquiries to identify officials enabling encroachments, even without formal charges.
-
This creates a new tool for environmental litigants to pressure bureaucratic accountability beyond court orders.
-
Practitioners should include requests for departmental inquiry in all NGT applications involving persistent state inaction.
-
Evidence of repeated non-compliance should be documented with timestamps and prior order references to establish pattern of negligence.
