Complete demarcation of Nahargarh sanctuary: NGT
1
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
United News of India
26 minutes ago
- United News of India
Modi did not contradict Trump on his claim of making him surrender: Rahul
Rajgir, June 06 (UNI) Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on Friday said US President Donald Trump had claimed eleven times that he forced Prime Minister Narendra Modi to surrender during operation Sindoor, but he did not contradict it and remained silent. Gandhi, while addressing a conference organised by his party here, said that PM Modi had the habit of surrender. Trump had claimed eleven times that he forced Modi to surrender during the operation Sindoor carried out recently, but the latter did not contradict and remained silent on the issue, he remarked. Congress leader also took potshots at Modi on his decision to conduct a caste census, saying he was also reluctant on the issue. When he exerted slight pressure on Modi on the caste census, he surrendered and announced the decision of his government to conduct a national-level caste census, he added. PM Modi had rejected the demand of Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar for a national-level caste census in 2021, when he had called on him, leading an all-party delegation from the state. After his refusal, Nitish Kumar's government had conducted a caste census in Bihar from its resources and named it as caste survey, as carrying out any sort of census is the right of the Central government. Even in parliament on several occasions and during its replies in the Supreme Court in several cases, the Narendra Modi government had expressed its opinion against the caste census in the country. UNI KKS BD
United News of India
42 minutes ago
- United News of India
SC declines urgent hearing on plea against animal sacrifice at Vishalgad Fort
New Delhi, June 6 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Friday declined to grant an urgent hearing to a petition challenging a Bombay High Court order that permitted animal sacrifice near a Dargah located within Vishalgad Fort in Maharashtra's Kolhapur district during the Bakr-Eid celebrations on June 7. The plea, mentioned before a vacation bench comprising justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma, sought immediate intervention against the June 3 High Court order allowing the ritual sacrifice at the historically protected site. The petitioner's counsel argued that Vishalgad Fort is a notified protected monument under the Maharashtra government and raised concerns about recurring law and order issues linked to such permissions in previous years. However, Justice Karol questioned the urgency of the plea, pointing out that similar permissions with restrictions were granted last year and that the High Court had already imposed conditions ensuring the sacrifices takes place within a 'closed and private area.' 'We are sure the High Court has considered this,' Justice Karol remarked. He also observed that multiple religious activities take place in protected monuments across the country, irrespective of the faith involved. The counsel acknowledged that the High Court had last year permitted animal slaughter under restricted conditions and noted that this year's order mirrored those provisions. Nevertheless, the counsel pressed for a listing, citing past tensions. Justice Karol, drawing from his tenure as Chief Justice of the Tripura High Court, recalled passing an order banning animal sacrifice, which was later modified by the Supreme Court to allow it within enclosed premises. 'Sitting in Tripura, I had banned animal slaughter there. This court modified the matter to say it will be carried out in enclosed premises,' he noted. The bench, however, refused to list the matter urgently, observing that the issue would become infructuous once the festival passes. 'What is the urgency? The matter will be infructuous anyhow,' Justice Karol stated. The June 3 Bombay High Court order, passed by justices Dr Neela Gokhale and Firdosh Pooniwalla, reiterated an earlier order dated June 14, 2024, which had permitted animal and bird sacrifice in a closed area near the Dargah, not in any public or open space. The same conditions were extended to cover the upcoming Bakr-Eid and the Urs festival scheduled from June 8 to June 12.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
US SC ruling opens door to reverse discrimination lawsuits over DEI
The US Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously ruled that majority-group employees—such as white or straight workers—must not face a higher burden of proof when suing for workplace discrimination. The verdict significantly alters how reverse discrimination claims will be handled across American workplaces, according to The New York Times. The case was brought by Marlean Ames, a straight woman who sued the Ohio Department of Youth Services after being passed over for promotions and later demoted. These positions, she said, went to gay colleagues with less experience or fewer qualifications. Lower courts had dismissed her lawsuit, citing a precedent that required majority-group plaintiffs to demonstrate 'background circumstances' showing that their employer was capable of discriminating against members of a traditionally dominant group. The Supreme Court rejected that standard. Title VII protects all equally Writing for the court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stated that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 'draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs.' The law protects every 'individual' equally, she wrote, regardless of identity. The ruling eliminates the need for additional evidence in such cases and sets a uniform standard across US courts. Until now, nearly half of federal appeals courts imposed stricter requirements on majority-group plaintiffs. Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, issued a concurring opinion questioning the logic of defining 'majority groups' in a diverse society. He called the idea that only 'unusual employers' discriminate against dominant groups 'nonsensical.' Thomas specifically pointed to widespread corporate and institutional use of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, which, he argued, may introduce bias against majority-group employees. Legal tide against DEI The decision comes amid growing political and legal scrutiny of DEI programmes in the US. It follows the Court's 2023 ruling that struck down race-based college admissions. Since returning to office, former President Donald Trump has taken aggressive steps to dismantle DEI efforts across federal agencies, schools, and corporations. Executive orders from his administration have revoked DEI requirements for contractors, ended related federal training programmes, and targeted officials involved in such initiatives. Universities and companies have responded by cancelling DEI events and cutting funding in anticipation of legal and political challenges. The Supreme Court's latest ruling could embolden more majority-group workers to file discrimination claims, creating new challenges for DEI compliance and implementation.
