NGT Can't Order Removal Of Encroachment Raised In Violation Of Municipal Laws : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that the National Green Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to order the removal of an alleged encroachment, which was raised in violation of the Municipal Laws. A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe set aside the New Delhi NGT decision, which had ordered the removal of a Temple, which was illegally constructed on the land shown as open space/Park in Sector – 16A, Vasundhara, District Ghaziabad. The bench faulted the NGT's exercise of its power under Section 14 of the NGT Act, 2010, which authorizes the Tribunal to adjudicate upon the question of law relating to the environment in respect of statutes specified in Schedule I, such as the Air Act, Water Act, Forest Act, Environment Protection Act, etc. The bench held that the issue of removing an unauthorized construction on open land falls within the domain of applicable municipal laws and does not raise any environmental question. Accordingly, it ruled that the NGT erred in directing the removal of the alleged unauthorized structure/temple, as the encroachment was in violation of municipal laws and not of the statutes specified under Schedule I of the NGT Act. “Thus, under Section 14, the National Green Tribunal has jurisdiction in a case which involves a substantial question of law relating to environment in respect of statutes specified in Schedule I. In the instant case, the Respondent No.1 had invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for removal of an alleged encroachment which according to it, was raised in violation of the Municipal Laws and the provisions of the Town Planning Act. Thus, the conditions precedent for empowering the Tribunal to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 14 of the Act were not fulfilled. The Tribunal, therefore, had no jurisdiction to direct removal of an alleged encroachment and alleged illegal construction which according to Respondent No.1 was raised in violation of the laws not specified in Schedule I to the Act. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal is, therefore, without jurisdiction. It is accordingly quashed and set aside.”, the court held. Accordingly, the appeal was disposed of, with a liberty to the Respondent-Residents Welfare Association [RWA] to approach the competent authority seeking redressal of its grievance. Also, the Court directed the State not to take action against the Appellants without issuing notice to them and the affected parties. Cause Title: NARENDER BHARDWAJ VERSUS M/S 108 SUPER COMPLEX R.W.A. & ORS.Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 249Click here to download orderAppearance: For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, Adv. Mr. Mani Munjal, Adv. Ms. Marbiang Khongwir, Adv. Mr. Parth Yadav, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Singh, Adv. Mr. Umesh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Madhulika, Adv. Mr. Anand Kumar Rai, Adv. Mr. Radeesh Kumar Mt, Adv. Mr. Amulya Dev Mishra, Adv. Mr. Manoj K. Mishra, AOR Mr. Vishnu Jain, Adv. Ms. Divya Jyoti Singh, AOR Ms. Mani Munjal, Adv. Ms. Marbiang Khongwir, Adv. Mr. Parth Yadav, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Krishna Kumar, Adv. Ms. Nandani Gupta, Adv. Dr. Mrs. Vipin Gupta, AOR Mr. Dhaval Mehrotra, AOR Ms. Aditi Desai, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Misra, AOR Mr. Daleep Dhyani, Adv. Mr. Anupam Misra, Adv. Mr. Suraj Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Malak Manish Bhatt, AOR Mr. Avijit Roy, AOR Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, AOR

NGT Can't Order Removal Of Encroachment Raised In Violation Of Municipal Laws : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

Tags