‘There can’t be a building’: HC refuses to interfere with NGT order directing restoration of Ludhiana park to its original form

During the exchange, the civic body’s counsel argued that the NGT had exceeded its jurisdiction because “no harm to the environment was caused” when the library was constructed. He submitted that only 7.6 per cent of the park’s area had been used, no trees were cut, and the building served “the whole of society.”

He also pointed to a 2021 state notification that permits up to 15 per cent of a park’s area to be used as “hard surface” under PPP models for facilities such as kiosks and ticketing counters, contending that a library could also fall within this permissible limit.

‘You have restricted the park area’

The bench was unmoved. “You have restricted the park area,” Chief Justice Nagu observed, adding that the question of how the structure affected the green area had already been examined by the NGT. When counsel insisted that the tribunal had looked only at the master plan and not environmental impact, he responded: “Master plan provides for reserving a particular area as green patch. That itself touches the environmental issue.”

The judges repeatedly pressed the civic body to explain “the small window” under which the high court could reopen factual findings already recorded by a specialised tribunal. At one point, CJ Nagu asked: “How do you expect us to go against this finding? It is a factual finding.”

‘Why are you before this court?’

The counsel for the civic body maintained that Article 226 powers could be invoked because the NGT order was “illegal” and that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to examine master plan violations. But the bench noted that the first NGT order dated October 4, 2024, followed by a subsequent order in March 2025, had already directed restoration of the park and that execution proceedings were now pending. “Why are you before this Court? Either challenge it or file an appeal before the apex court,” CJ Nagu said.

The bench also questioned the reliance on the state’s 15 per cent ‘hard surface’ policy, noting that it covers kiosks, pathways, and ticketing facilities but is silent on the construction of buildings such as libraries. “There cannot be a building in the park,” the CJ remarked.

After a prolonged hearing, the bench dictated its order in open court, holding that once the NGT had adjudicated the factual matrix — including whether the library violated Ludhiana’s master plan and restricted the park area — it would “not be proper” for the high court to revisit those findings in judicial review.

The court declined to entertain the petition, observing that the municipal corporation was free to seek remedies under Section 22 of the NGT Act before the Supreme Court or to approach the NGT in the execution proceedings.

Curated For You

Pakistan has rebuilt, reactivated 72 terror launchpads along Jammu frontier since Op Sindoor, BSF says

What is Sanchar Saathi, the app govt has asked smartphone makers to preinstall on all phones

800 kms from Ayodhya, a Babri Masjid-Ram Mandir replica showdown fuels a fresh political row in Bengal