The Jajpur case involves 178 government schools and a reported ₹61.60 crore in DMF-funded infrastructure works. The tribunal has stopped further construction requiring statutory clearance, raising questions about project sanctions, land verification and administrative accountability.
BHUBANESWAR, November 12: The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has restrained authorities in Odisha’s Jajpur district from undertaking further construction of government schools on forest-category land without obtaining the applicable statutory approvals.
The October 30 order, delivered by the tribunal’s Eastern Zone Bench comprising judicial member Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi and expert member Ishwar Singh, concerns school infrastructure in the mineral-rich Danagadi and Sukinda blocks.
The proceedings have brought a larger governance question into focus: How were publicly funded construction projects sanctioned and implemented before the necessary forest-land procedures were completed?
178 schools under scrutiny
The case originated from a petition filed by Kailash Chandra Nayak, a resident of Nuadihi village.
According to the government’s submissions before the tribunal, 84 schools in Danagadi and 94 in Sukinda were situated on land classified as forest in revenue records.
The disputed works included additional classrooms, libraries and activity rooms intended to improve educational infrastructure.
Earlier reporting identified approximately ₹61.60 crore in District Mineral Foundation (DMF) sanctions connected with the school infrastructure programme.
The NGT proceedings record that project estimates were approved through the district administration’s DMF mechanism, with the Jajpur Collector functioning as its Managing Trustee.
This makes the approval process central to the investigation.
Were land records examined before administrative and financial sanctions were issued? Did the executing agencies seek the required forest permissions? Were any objections raised by the Forest or Revenue departments?
First the construction, then the paperwork?
The sequence of events raises significant questions.
The tribunal recorded project-estimate approvals dating from November 2023 and January 2024.
Applications seeking regularisation or diversion approval were subsequently submitted for schools situated on forest-category land.
The Forest department informed the tribunal that 170 regularisation proposals had been received. Of these, 107 were approved by the District Level Committee on October 15, 2025—50 relating to Sukinda and 57 to Danagadi.
Additional proposals were subsequently forwarded for consideration.
The crucial distinction is between sanctioning educational infrastructure and obtaining lawful permission to use forest land. One does not automatically substitute for the other.
What the NGT actually ruled
The tribunal did not declare all 178 school buildings illegal or order their demolition.
It recognised that some schools existed before the Forest (Conservation) Act came into force in October 1980, making the legal position of those sites different from that of later developments.
The tribunal also acknowledged that Section 3(2) of the Forest Rights Act, 2006 permits forest-land diversion for specified government-managed facilities, including schools, subject to conditions such as Gram Sabha recommendation and land-area limits.
It observed that construction undertaken without following the prescribed procedure could be irregular without necessarily being absolutely illegal.
The NGT therefore directed the authorities to obtain prior or ex-post facto approval, as applicable, before undertaking further construction governed by the forest-conservation law.
Government’s defence
The Odisha government argued that the schools had existed for decades and that additional infrastructure was required because of increased enrolment and educational needs.
It submitted that the construction was undertaken on land already occupied by the schools and that no trees had been felled.
The administration also maintained that it was pursuing the necessary regularisation procedures.
These submissions matter. Improving education in mining-affected and tribal regions is a legitimate public objective, and the tribunal expressly considered the state’s obligations under the Right to Education framework.
But the public purpose of a project does not eliminate the need to establish its legal compliance.
The unanswered DMF question
The District Mineral Foundation is intended to benefit people and areas affected by mining operations.
Education is among the permissible priority areas for DMF expenditure.
The concern in this case is therefore not whether DMF money may be spent on schools. It is whether the administrative and legal prerequisites were properly checked before expenditure was authorised.
The government should disclose the complete project-wise sanction list, forest-land classification, approval status, work orders, contractor details, expenditure incurred and construction status.
A further question is whether officials who approved the projects had been informed that the land required statutory scrutiny.
No individual finding of misconduct against the sanctioning officials has been established by the tribunal’s order. Determining responsibility would require examination of the relevant files and decisions.
Development and legality are not competing objectives
The Jajpur case illustrates a problem that can arise when departments responsible for development, land records, finance and forest regulation fail to coordinate adequately.
The answer cannot be to deny school infrastructure to children in underserved communities.
Nor can it be to treat statutory approval as a formality to be completed after construction.
The Odisha government should conduct a project-wise review, identify the approvals still required, disclose the status of regularisation and ensure that educational services are not unnecessarily disrupted.
The question is straightforward: If the government had the authority and resources to sanction these schools, why were the necessary land-clearance procedures not completed before the projects proceeded?
That question deserves a documented administrative answer—not merely an assurance that the buildings serve a public purpose.
