The Supreme Court has ruled that alleged violations of building plans do not fall within the jurisdiction of the National Green Tribunal under Section 14 of the NGT Act. The Court held that the NGT exceeded its powers by intervening in construction disputes already pending before the High Court.
The Supreme Court of India has held that the National Green Tribunal (NGT) cannot interfere in matters related to alleged violations of building plans concerning commercial constructions, as such issues do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act.
The Apex Court further ruled that the NGT went beyond its legal powers by entertaining complaints about alleged violations of building plans, especially when the main issue regarding the legality of change in land use was already pending before the High Court in writ proceedings.
ALSO READ: Legacy Waste|| CJI Stays NGT’s Rs 1,000 Crore Penalty on Punjab
The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta. After examining all the material placed before the Court, the Bench clearly observed:
“…as the matter relating to alleged illegality in change of land use was already under scanner in the writ petition filed before the High Court in the year 2015, the NGT was not justified in interfering with the issues concerning violation of building plans in relation to the construction of commercial premises. We also feel that the aforesaid issues are beyond the scope and purview of the proceedings before the NGT under Section 14 of the NGT Act.”
The dispute in the present case arose from the construction of several commercial properties located in Gurugram, Haryana, including Leela Ambience Hotel, Ambience Mall/Ambience Commercial Tower, and Ambience Lagoons. Allegations were raised claiming that there was an illegal change of land use and violations of approved building plans and construction norms in respect of these projects.
It was pointed out before the Supreme Court that as early as 2015, writ petitions had already been filed before the High Court challenging the alleged illegal change in land use related to these commercial properties.
These writ petitions were still pending and were under active judicial consideration when proceedings were later initiated before the National Green Tribunal.
Despite the pendency of the writ proceedings before the High Court, applications were filed before the NGT raising issues related to violations of building plans and construction regulations.
The Tribunal proceeded to examine these allegations and issued several directions that had a direct impact on the construction and functioning of the commercial complexes.
Aggrieved by this interference, the appellants approached the Supreme Court and challenged the NGT’s orders. They argued that the Tribunal had exceeded the scope of its authority under the National Green Tribunal Act by deciding issues that were not environmental in nature and were already being examined by the High Court.
The Supreme Court carefully analysed the scope of Section 14 of the NGT Act, which empowers the Tribunal to decide only “substantial questions relating to the environment” arising from the implementation of laws specified in Schedule I of the Act.
The Court noted that the main issue concerning the alleged illegality in the change of land use had been under judicial scrutiny before the High Court since 2015. In such circumstances, the Apex Court held that the NGT should not have intervened in the matter.
The Bench further clarified that alleged violations of sanctioned building plans, particularly when such issues are connected to land use disputes already pending before the High Court, do not fall within the scope of proceedings under Section 14 of the NGT Act.
While examining the jurisdictional issue, the Supreme Court also relied on its earlier decision in Auroville Foundation v. Navroz Kersasp Mody (2025). Agreeing with the submissions made by the appellants, the Court observed that
“the issue of environment was not a substantial question before the NGT thereby justifying the invocation of jurisdiction by the NGT in this matter”.
In the Auroville case, the Supreme Court had clearly explained 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 the environment as contemplated in Section 2(1)(m), and such a substantial question must arise out of the implementation of any of the enactment/enactments specified in Schedule I.”
Applying this legal principle to the present case, the Apex Court concluded that
“viewed in light of the aforesaid precedent, a serious doubt arises as to the jurisdiction of the NGT to entertain the original application”.
As a result, the Supreme Court held that the National Green Tribunal had clearly acted beyond its jurisdiction. The Court allowed the appeals and stayed the orders passed by the NGT.
The Apex Court further directed that all proceedings before the National Green Tribunal shall remain in abeyance until the High Court finally decides the pending civil writ petitions concerning the change of land use.
Additionally, the Supreme Court ordered that the report of the Joint Expert Committee—which had recommended imposition of environmental compensation, withholding of 25–50% of profits, and even demolition of parts of the commercial complex—shall not be acted upon for the time being.
ALSO READ: NGT Takes Note of High Sewage Contamination in Ganga During Mahakumbh in Prayagraj
With these directions, the appeals were disposed of.
The case was titled Raj Singh Gehlot v. Amitabh Sen, bearing Neutral Citation 2026 INSC 77.
On behalf of the appellants, arguments were advanced by Advocates Samar Vijay Singh (AOR), Preetika Dwivedi (AOR), Abhisek Mohanty, Ansh Rajauria, along with M/s Karanjawala & Co., AOR, and others.
The respondents were represented by Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, along with other appearing counsel.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
