[2009] 8 S.C.R. 568

SABIR SIDDIQ MALIK

BOMBAY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION GROUP AND ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 2352 of 2005)

MAY 8, 2008 B

[DR, ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR

GANGULY, JJ.]

Remedy - Writ petition alleging encroachment in c National park - High Court constituting Grievance Redressal Committee to look into the grievances - Propriety of - Held: The question regarding encroachment cannot be decided in a writ petition - Such factual disputes have to be decided by statutory authority - Grievance Redressal Committee cannot

D be substituted for statutorily prescribed body - Alleged encroacher directed to move the statutory authority with appropriate jurisdiction - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2352 of 2005.

From the Judgment & Order dated 15.09.2003 of the High \.

Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 305 of 1995.

WITH

C.A. Nos. 2344-2349, 2353, 2354, 2350, 2329 of 2005.

Swarup Singh, Shyam Diwan, lndu Malhotra, Indira Jaisingh, Pallav Shishodia, Shekhar Nephade, P.S. Narsimha,

G S.K. Chaudhary, Aniruddha P. Mayee, Sunieta Ojha, Vasuman, ..

Shilpa Singh, Mukesh K. Giri, Jayshree Wad, Ashish Wad, Chirag S. Dave, Sameer Abhyankar, S. Vikram (J.S. Wad & Co.) Samrat, Kavita Wadia, Sanjay Sharawat, Vikas Mehta, D.N. Mishra, M. Qamaruddin Atishi Dipankar, Ravindra

H 568

SABIR SIDDIQ MALIK v. BOMBAY ENVIRONMENTAL 569

ACTION GROUP AND ORS. " Keshavrao Adsure, Dilip Annasaheb Taur, Santosh Kr. Tripathi, A Atul Y. Chitale, Sunaina Dutta, S.A. Chitale, Akhil Sibal, Ankur Saigal Bina Gupta, Anisha Ranjan, Gaurav Singh, K.D.

Abhichandaani, Bhargava V. Desai, Rahul Gupta, Reema Sharma, E.C. Agrawala, S.D. Singh, Vijay Kumar, Vishwajit $ingh and Asha Gopalan Nair for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ' 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 c

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 D 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 E 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 F 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 G ... 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 in Sanjay Gandhi National Park. There is dispute that the question H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS


A relating to unauthorized occupation has to be adjudicated by any competent authority statutorily.

4. Learned counsef for the State of Maharashtra submitted as noted above that there have been several rounds of i3 adjudication. This position is strongly denied by learned counsel for the appellants. There can be abso'utely no doubt that the question whether a person is unauthorisedly ih occupation cannot be decidea 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 C 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 rnove to the statutorily provided forum to consider the grievances. To the extent the order of the High Court is varied. The grievance D 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 E final decision of the matter. We express no opinion in that regard. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.

K.K.T.

Appeals dismissed.