NGT takes up third case against ex-PCCF for forest land diversion in Bhuban Hills

Guwahati, Sept 22: Former Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (PCCF) and current Special Chief Secretary, Mahendra Kumar Yadava, is facing increasing legal challenges with a third case filed against him in the National Green Tribunal (NGT). This case, brought by Pradeepsinh Shekhawat from Jaipur, Rajasthan, targets the legality of a road construction project within the Barak Bhuban Wildlife Sanctuary in Assam’s Barak Valley, located in the Cachar district.
The petitioner has raised concerns that the ongoing construction is causing significant environmental damage, violating the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and guidelines issued by the Central government in December 2023. The construction project is alleged to be diverting forest land for non-forestry purposes without proper clearance, potentially leading to the destruction of the sanctuary’s biodiversity and habitats.
This case adds to Yadava’s mounting legal troubles, as he is already facing two other cases concerning the alleged diversion of forest land for non-forestry purposes in Assam.
The petition, filed by Pradeepsinh Shekhawat, accused Yadava of issuing a directive in November 2022 that allegedly facilitated the illegal diversion of forest land for a road construction project in the Barak Bhuban Wildlife Sanctuary. At the time of issuing the directive, Yadava was serving as the PCCF and Head of the Forest Force (HoFF) in the state.
The petition claimed that Yadava misused his official authority to allow the project, violating the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and disregarding the guidelines issued by the Central government in December 2023.
Yadava retired from his position as PCCF on February 19, 2024, but was reappointed as Special Chief Secretary (Forest) by the Assam government shortly thereafter. The case adds to the mounting legal troubles Yadava faces, with accusations of environmental violations during his tenure as the state’s top forest official.
The petition highlighted allegations of his direct contravention of the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980 (Forest Conservation Act, 1980), by approving the diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes without obtaining the required Central government approvals. According to the petition, Yadava, during a meeting on November 22, 2022, instructed the Public Works Department (PWD) to proceed with road construction within the Barak Bhuban Wildlife Sanctuary in Cachar district, Assam, without adhering to the statutory provisions mandated by the Act.
The petitioner asserted that the minutes of the meeting demonstrate Yadava’s disregard for legal frameworks and the orders of the Tribunal, further alleging that this represents yet another example of Yadava’s misuse of power during his tenure as the PCCF and Head of Forest Force (HoFF).
Yadava is facing increasing legal scrutiny, with two earlier Original Applications (OAs) already pending before the NGT, both of which have noted his involvement in the illegal diversion of forest land.
The first Case pending before the NGT Principal Bench, New Delhi, involves the suo-motu cognizance taken by the Tribunal based on a media report, which highlighted Yadava’s role in illegally clearing 44 hectares of protected forest land in Barak Valley for the establishment of a Commando Battalion Headquarters. This was allegedly done in violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, bypassing mandatory procedures and approvals.
The second case is pending before the NGT, concerning the illegal diversion of 28 hectares of reserve forest land in the Geleky Reserve Forest, located in the Assam-Nagaland interstate border area in the Sivasagar district. The land was reportedly diverted for the establishment of a second Commando Battalion, once again violating the legal framework established under the Forest (Conservation) Act.
In the third and latest case, the petitioner underscored the urgency of halting the construction to prevent irreversible environmental damage to the sanctuary, arguing that Yadava’s actions represent a pattern of misuse of power in violation of conservation laws.