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