NGT Cannot Decide Disputes Relating To Building Plan Violations : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (January 20) held that NGT cannot adjudicate disputes which are essentially related to land use, zoning regulations, and town-planning compliance, even if such disputes are projected as environmental concerns.

“The dispute relating to the non-adherence of the building plans qua the open and green spaces... the issue of environment was not a substantial question before the NGT thereby justifying its invocation of jurisdiction by the NGT in this matter. Rather, the present matter involved disputed claims of the parties in relation to irregularities in utilisation of the land belonging to the appellant-Ambience Developers in developing the residential colony.”, observed a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta, reaffirming that where the dispute essentially concerns land use, zoning, building plan approvals, and town-planning compliance, it falls outside the NGT's jurisdiction under Section 14 of the NGT Act, 2010.

The bench heard the batch of SLPs involved allegations that commercial constructions had been raised on land originally licensed for residential use in Gurugram's Ambience Lagoon Island project and that such development had environmental implications. Acting on these claims, the NGT had passed interim orders imposing environmental compensation and constituted expert committees to assess alleged violations. One such committee even recommended massive penalties and demolition of certain structures.

However, the Court found that the core dispute was not environmental degradation but the legality of de-licensing and the permissibility of commercial use of the land under town-planning laws. Since these issues were already pending consideration before the Punjab and Haryana High Court in connected proceedings, the NGT's intervention amounted to jurisdictional overreach, the court said.

Referencing The Auroville Foundation v Navroz Kersap Mody and others, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 312, the judgment authored by Justice Mehta held that NGT's jurisdiction is confined to “substantial questions relating to the environment” arising from special statutes related to environmental protection specified in Schedule I of the NGT Act.

“it is explicitly clear that every question or dispute raised by an applicant before the Tribunal pertaining to the environment cannot be treated as a substantial question. It has to be a substantial question relating to environment as contemplated in Section 2(1)(m), and such substantial question must arise out of the implementation of any of the enactment/enactments specified in Schedule I. Though strict law of evidence may not be applicable to the cases filed before the Tribunal, the applicant has to raise the substantial question in his application specifically alleging the violation of a particular enactment specified in Schedule I.”, the court observed in The Auroville Foundation's (supra).

Accordingly, the court kept the proceedings pending before NGT in abeyance till the disposal of the pending case before the High Court. Also, an order passed by the NGT directing the formation of the Joint Expert Committee, which recommends the imposition of a fine of Rs. 138.83 crores, Rs. 10.33 crores environmental compensation, withholding 25–50% of profits, and possible demolition of the commercial complex, shall not be acted upon for now.

Headnote

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Writ Jurisdiction – Disputed Questions of Fact and Delay – Held that High Court erred in entertaining a writ petition filed in 2015 challenging construction activities that commenced in 2002 and were completed by 2007-2008 - Held: Gross delay in approaching the Court disentitles a petitioner to discretionary relief under Article 226 – Noted that in writ proceedings decided on affidavits, the burden of proof lies on the petitioner to specifically plead and substantiate facts with cogent material; mere abstract points of law without evidence are insufficient. [Paras 66 - 70]

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – Section 14 – Jurisdiction – Substantial Question Relating to Environment –The NGT's jurisdiction is limited to civil cases involving a "substantial question relating to environment" arising from enactments in Schedule I - Held: Issues intrinsically connected to building plan violations and land-use disputes already under adjudication by the High Court do not qualify as substantial environmental questions for NGT intervention - Every dispute pertaining to the environment is not a "substantial question" under Section 2(1)(m) of the Act. [Relied on Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1988 SC 534; Auroville Foundation v. Navroz Kersasp Mody, (2025) 4 SCC 150; State of M.P. v. Centre for Environment Protection Research & Development, (2020) 9 SCC 781; Paras 104 - 106]

Contract Law – Apartment Buyers' Agreement – Dominant Position and Fraud – The High Court's finding that flat owners were made to "sign on the dotted line" due to the developer's dominant position was held to be conjectural – Held - In the absence of foundational pleadings alleging fraud, misrepresentation, or coercion at the time of execution, a decade-old registered agreement cannot be disregarded or held to be executed under misrepresentation. [Paras 61, 62]

Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 – Section 3(3A) – De-licensing and Validation – Power to grant a license includes the implied power to withdraw, modify, or de-license, as supported by Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 – Held - The 2020 Amendment to the 1975 Act retrospectively validated de-licensing actions taken by the authorities. [Para 71, 72]

Cause Title: RAJ SINGH GEHLOT & ORS. VERSUS AMITABHA SEN & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 72

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Madhavi Divan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR Mr. Abhisek Mohanty, Adv. Mr. Ansh Rajauria, Adv. Mr. Anupam Mishra, Adv. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pinaki Misra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Ralli, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Adv. Mr. Vishal Gehrana, Adv. Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, Adv. Ms. Uzma Sheikh, Adv. Ms. Varsha Himatsinghka, Adv. Mr. Tribhuvan Singh, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Seem, Adv. Mr. Shubham Yadav, Adv. Mr. Keshav Sehgal, Adv. For M/s.Karanjawala & Co., AOR

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Madhavi Divan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR Mr. Abhisek Mohanty, Adv. Mr. Ansh Rajauria, Adv. Mr. Anupam Mishra, Adv. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, AOR Ms. Rani Mishra, Adv. Ms. Aditi Pandey, Adv. Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, Adv. Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia, AOR Mr. Amer Vaid, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Sharma, Adv. Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Sr. A.A.G. Ms. Noopur Singhal, Adv. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Madhav Sinhal, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Nikunj Gupta, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Ms. Aakanksha, Adv. Ms. Ishika Gupta, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Arya, Adv. Mr. Gaj Singh, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Raman Singh, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Ms. Megha Karanwal, Adv. Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv. Mr. Rohan Gupta, Adv. Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Anmol Chandan, Adv. Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Adv. Mr. T.S. Sabarish, Adv. Mr. Piyush Beriwal, AOR Mr. Varun Chugh, Adv. Ms. Shagun Shahi, Adv. Ms. Meera Chugh, Adv. Ms. Aisha Singh, Adv. Mr. Yash Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Vikash Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Kartik Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ali Mohammed Khan, Adv. Mr. Saurav Kumar, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Sr. Adv. Ms. Megha Karanwal, Adv. Ms. Preeti Rani, Adv. Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, AOR Ms. Uttara Babbar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Guneet Sidhu, Adv. Mr. Aakash Deep Singh, Adv. Mr. Ayush P. Shah, Adv. Mr. Jasmeet Singh, AOR