Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2009
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2352 of 2005)
Sabir Siddiq Malik …Appellant
Versus
Bombay Environmental Action Group and Ors. …Respondents
(With Civil Appeal Nos. 2344-2349 of 2005
Civil Appeal No. 2350 of 2005
Civil Appeal No. 2353 of 2005
Civil Appeal No. 2354 of 2005
Civil Appeal No. 2329 of 2005
J U D G M E N T
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. In these appeals challenge is to the judgment of a Division Bench of
the Bombay High Court in several writ petitions and notice of motion.
Allegation was that appellants were encroachers in Sanjay Gandhi National
Park and therefore they were to be evicted. The basic stand of the appellants
is that they are not encroachers and they are not occupying any portion of
Sanjay Gandhi National Park. It is their case that the High Court has shut out
all remedies statutorily available. It is submitted that there has to be factual
adjudication as to whether they are encroachers.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent-State of Maharashtra submitted
that these questions are being repeatedly raised by the appellants. There has
been not once but several adjudications made by various authorities that they
are in fact unauthorized occupants/encroachers who have made unauthorized
constructions. It is submitted that the High Court has appointed a High
Level Committee to look into the grievances to cut short the prolonged
litigation and repeatedly filing of petitions to prolong the proceedings, the
High Court has directed to constitute a Committee who shall entertain any
proceeding in this behalf.
3. Whether the appellants are unauthorized occupants cannot be decided
obviously in a writ petition. The Bombay Environment Action Group one of
the writ petitioners had brought to the notice of the Court that there were
large number of persons unauthorisedly occupying vast portion of the land
2
in Sanjay Gandhi National Park. There is dispute that the question relating to
unauthorized occupation has to be adjudicated by any competent authority
statutorily.
4. Learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra submitted as noted
above that there have been several rounds of adjudication. This position is
strongly denied by learned counsel for the appellants. There can be
absolutely no doubt that the question whether a person is unauthorisedly in
occupation cannot be decided in a writ petition. Where factual disputes of
this nature can be adjudicated, obviously, adjudication has to be done by
statutory authority. It is open to the appellants to move any authority which
according to them has the jurisdiction to decide that issue within four
months. If there is adverse adjudication it shall be open to the appellants to
move to the statutorily provided forum to consider the grievances. To the
extent the order of the High Court is varied. The grievance redressal
committee cannot be substituted for statutorily prescribed body. Needless to
say the challenge if any to the prescribed authority in case of adverse
adjudication has to be taken within the prescribed period of limitation. It is
open to the parties to seek such protection as is available in law pending
3
final decision of the matter. We express no opinion in that regard. The
appeals are accordingly dismissed.
………………………………….J.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
………………………………….J.
(ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)
New Delhi,
May 08, 2009
4