Complete demarcation of Nahargarh sanctuary: NGT
2
Jaipur:
National Green Tribunal
(NGT) has directed the state govt to finalise demarcation and digitisation of land in Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary and its Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) amid growing concerns over illegal constructions, encroachments and disputes regarding land rights.
The matter pertains to the land of VanKhand Amer-54, which was notified as part of the sanctuary through govt notifications issued in 1961 and 1980. The NGT's Central Zone Bench in Bhopal, comprising Justice Sheo Kumar Singh and expert member Dr Afroz Ahmad, heard the case between Kamal Tiwari and the Union of India & others via video conferencing on May 27.
The tribunal was informed of several serious issues, including the absence of clear demarcation, unauthorised constructions and failure to mutate the land in favour of the forest department.
"Disputes also arose between individuals claiming rights over the land and authorities seeking to remove illegal structures from the forest area," the order states.
The tribunal was apprised of the urgent need to prepare a digital map based on original forest notifications, land records, and khasra-scale mapping.
"The process involves assessing the current status of notified forest land, revenue land, and other categories through physical verification and village-wise justification," said a senior forest official.
The tribunal also took note of recent directions from Supreme Court in a related matter, wherein all States and Union Territories were instructed to prepare a consolidated record of forest land—including forest-like areas identified by expert committees—within one year. The Supreme Court further directed the Union of India to issue necessary circulars for compliance and digitization of forest land.
In compliance with these directions, Rajasthan's principal chief conservator of forests and chief wildlife warden convened a high-level meeting. A committee of more than nine members was formed to undertake the demarcation exercise.
"A preliminary report was submitted and is currently under verification by wildlife department. The matter will now be heard on Sept 8, 2025," said an official.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
10 minutes ago
- Hans India
Kerala CM boycotts ‘At Home' called by Guv
Thiruvananthapuram: In a fresh display of the growing rift between Kerala Governor Rajendra V. Arlekar and Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, the Chief Minister and his Cabinet colleagues on Friday boycotted the traditional 'At-Home' reception hosted by the Governor at Raj Bhavan as part of Independence Day celebrations. Although invitations had been extended to the Chief Minister and all ministers, none of them attended the evening function. The state government was represented only by Chief Secretary The absence of the political leadership is being widely seen as a public reiteration of the ongoing tensions between the Governor and the state administration. The friction between the two sides has sharpened in recent months over multiple issues, most recently, the controversy surrounding a government circular to observe 'Partition Horrors Remembrance Day' and the disputes over temporary appointments of vice-chancellors in state universities. The issue of the appointment is now under the scrutiny of the Supreme Court. Interestingly, the state government had sanctioned an additional Rs 15 lakh for the Governor's reception this year, despite the strained relations. The allocation was made under the 'hospitality expenses' head after relaxing earlier cost-cutting directives. The funds were sanctioned based on a request from the Additional Chief Secretary to the Governor, who sought financial clearance to host prominent citizens and distinguished guests at the Raj Bhavan reception. Sources indicated that the decision to allocate the amount was taken even as the dispute over university appointments was at its peak. The gesture, however, did not translate into political participation, as the Chief Minister and ministers stayed away from the gathering. Traditionally, the Governor's 'At-Home' event is a high-profile social occasion, bringing together senior officials, political leaders, and eminent members of society. The visible absence of the ruling front's top political figures this year underscores the deepening institutional standoff in Kerala's governance. Observers note that while the administrative machinery continues to function, the lack of political engagement between the Governor and the state's elected leadership could complicate decision-making on key matters, including higher education appointments and protocol-related events in the coming months.
The Hindu
10 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Supreme Court Collegium cannot dictate names to High Court Collegiums: CJI Gavai
Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai on Friday (August 15, 2025) clarified that the powerful Supreme Court Collegium, which he heads, cannot 'dictate' names to High Court Collegiums for judicial appointments. 'Even the Supreme Court Collegium cannot dictate the High Court Collegium to recommend the names,' Chief Justice Gavai said in his Independence Day address at a function organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) on the court's lawns. Also read: Independence Day highlights The Chief Justice said the High Court Collegiums take the 'first call' on who they would want as their fellow judges. At most, the Chief Justice said, the apex court Collegium could 'recommend' names to its counterparts in the High Courts. The Chief Justice said in a federal judiciary, the Supreme Court and the State High Courts were neither superior nor inferior to each other. The relationship was that of mutual respect. 'As I have always been saying recently, the Supreme Court is not a superior court to the High Court. Both the Supreme Court and the High Court are the constitutional courts. And insofar as the constitutional scheme is concerned, they are neither inferior nor superior to each other. Therefore, the first call has to be taken by the High Court Collegium. We only recommend the names to the High Court Collegium and request them to consider the names. And only after their satisfaction, the names come to the Supreme Court,' the Chief Justice explained. The Chief Justice was responding to a representation made by SCBA president, senior advocate Vikas Singh, to widen the pool of selection for prospective High Court judges, and consider picking legal talent from lawyers practising in the Supreme Court. 'We are aware that lawyers coming from different States perform very well, and their services should be utilised for the various High Courts. I must say that I, along with my senior colleagues, have been successful in getting the names of some of the candidates, who are practicing here, not only recommended to the various High Courts, but also some of them have already been appointed over the years. We are also in the process of recommending some more names,' the Chief Justice informed. The demand from the Bar leader and the response from the Chief Justice on Friday has come at a time when the High Courts are facing 345 vacancies as on August 1. Out of a total working judicial strength of 1,122 judges, there are only 777 judges on the Benches of the 25 State High Courts across the country. Opinion | The Collegium and changes — it may still be early days The delay caused at the government's end to clear recommendations made by the Supreme Court Collegium has also contributed to vacancies in the High Courts. Selective appointments of names to the High Courts by the government have been a cause of friction with the Collegium. The Supreme Court, while hearing a case of government delay in judicial appointments, had urged the Centre to clear recommendations while noting that vacancies are affecting justice administration. Recent data published by the Supreme Court showed that 29 recommendations made by the Supreme Court Collegium to State High Courts since November 9, 2022 were pending with the government.
The Hindu
10 minutes ago
- The Hindu
UDF spotlights court's observation that a ‘superpower authority' controlled Vigilance as an indictment of CMO
The Congress-led United Democratic Front (UDF) on Friday argued that a special court's damning repudiation of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB)'s attempt to absolve former Additional Director General of Police, Law and Order, M.R. Ajith Kumar vindicated the Opposition's position that a cabal of conspirators at the apex of the Chief Minister's Office (CMO) subverted law enforcement for their vested interests. Leader of the Opposition V.D. Satheesan stated that the clique operated beyond the pale of law and legislative scrutiny. Mr. Satheesan said the court had shone a light on how the coterie controlled the police, including the VACB. He highlighted the court's observations in the high-profile case. Inquiry Commissioner and Special Judge A. Manoj had written that the 'court cannot believe that the officers of the Vigilance department and the superpower authority controlling them' violated the Supreme Court's stricture on investigating official corruption. Mr. Satheesan also seized upon a damning observation of the court to criticise the CMO. The court stated that the 'facts of the case suggest that there is an invisible penetration by someone into the inquiry that leads to the preparation of a report favourable to the suspect, who holds a high position in the Police department. The inquiry report is a subservient report prepared for those who need reports like the present one.' The judge flagged an 'apparent attempt' at the inquiry's outset to supersede the statutory provisions of the Vigilance Manual and Supreme Court judgments, including the establishing Lalithakumari case. The judge wrote that the investigation officer juggled facts and statements to absolve the accused officer of the alleged crime of disproportionate assets accumulation. Mr. Satheesan said the court's decision to conduct an inquiry on its own was an indictment of the Left Department Front (LDF) and its Home and Vigilance departments. He stated the court had signalled an evident lack of trust in the VACB governed by Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan. Mr. Satheesan alleged that the VACB's clean chit to Mr. Ajith Kumar was a quid pro quo for the ranking officer acting as the Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)]'s secret emissary to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. He alleged that Mr. Vijayan had protected the officer, despite him holding secret parleys with the RSS' national leadership.
