Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Environmental LawSupreme Court of India

Sunder Singh & Anr. v. M/S Satish Kumar Garg and Company & Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 855Decided 29 Jul 2026
C.A. No.-011992-011992 - 2026
Justice Joymalya Bagchi · Justice V. Mohana

Background

A mining company held a 20-year mining lease over land in Haryana granted in 2002 for extracting quartz, felspar and barytes. The land was later identified as part of the "Aravalli Plantation" area earmarked for afforestation, so the Forest Department refused to renew the required No Objection Certificate (NOC) for mining. The company challenged this before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which sided with the company, reasoning that since actual tree plantation had not been proven on this specific parcel, mining could proceed. Residents of a nearby village then appealed to the Supreme Court, concerned about ecological damage.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court rejected the High Court's reasoning, holding that land officially earmarked for afforestation deserves the same legal protection as land where trees have already grown, otherwise, any gap in actually completing a plantation drive would open the door to mining on ecologically sensitive land. Since the disputed land was confirmed to be part of the identified Aravalli Project area, the Court set aside the High Court's order, upheld the Forest Department's refusal to grant the NOC, quashed the subsequent Environmental Clearance, and ordered the mining lease cancelled. It also directed the Haryana government to survey all Aravalli-earmarked land, identify any subsisting mining rights over it, and terminate them.

Lesson Learnt

Land designated for environmental protection or afforestation carries that protected status from the moment it is officially earmarked, not only once trees are actually standing on it: this closes a loophole that would otherwise let commercial activity exploit incomplete government conservation projects.

Sunder Singh & Anr. v. M/S Satish Kumar Garg and Company & Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware