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.HeadnoteNational Green Tribunal Act, 2010; Section 14, 2(m) and Schedule I - Jurisdiction of NGT - Removal of Encroachment - The Supreme Court set aside an NGT order directing the removal of a temple and associated structures allegedly built on land earmarked for a park/open space - held that for the NGT to exercise jurisdiction under Section 14, there must be a "substantial question relating to environment" involving the implementation of specific enactments listed in Schedule I of the Act - Since the dispute involved alleged violations of Municipal Laws and Town Planning Acts which are not included in Schedule I, the NGT lacked the jurisdiction to order the removal of the encroachment.National Green Tribunal Act, 2010; Section 2(m) - Substantial Question Relating to Environment - Definition includes instances of direct violation of specific environmental statutory obligations affecting the community at large, substantial damage to environment/property, or measurable damage to public health. Jurisdiction is strictly limited to the seven central environmental laws specified in Schedule I. [Paras 7-10]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

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

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

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers