SABIR SIDDIQ MALIKversusBOMBAY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION GROUP AND ORS.

                        [2009] 8 S.C.R. 568
                                                                      (


A                      SABIR SIDDIQ MALIK
                                  v.
    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.
E 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
F
    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.                B

                      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
     570      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2009] 8 S.C.R.
                                                                           f

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.




                                                                                   -