NGT Cannot Order Demolition of Temple On Ground of Encroachment of Park: Supreme Court Quashes Removal Order For Want of Jurisdiction

"The conditions precedent for empowering the Tribunal to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 14 of the Act were not fulfilled", Supreme Court of India has quashed an order of the National Green Tribunal directing removal of a temple allegedly constructed on land earmarked as an open space/park in Vasundhara, Ghaziabad, holding that the NGT had no jurisdiction to pass such an order.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe held that the NGT's jurisdiction under Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 is strictly confined to civil cases involving a substantial question relating to environment arising from the seven statutes specified in Schedule I of the Act — and that a complaint alleging encroachment in violation of Municipal Laws and the Town Planning Act does not satisfy this jurisdictional threshold.

The ruling is a significant reminder that the NGT, despite its wide environmental mandate, is a creature of statute with defined boundaries of jurisdiction, and cannot be converted into a forum for resolving land encroachment disputes dressed in environmental language.

Background of the Case

Respondent No. 1 — M/s 108 Super Complex Residents Welfare Association — filed an application before the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi under Section 14 of the NGT Act, alleging that a temple had been illegally constructed on a plot of land earmarked as a park in Sector 16A, Vasundhara, District Ghaziabad. The RWA sought removal of the temple and all associated structures, along with consequential directions.

The appellant, Narender Bhardwaj, filed a reply before the Tribunal denying the allegations and pointing out that even in the Revised Layout Plan dated 14 July 2004 prepared by the Uttar Pradesh Housing Board, the temple had been shown as existing — meaning the structure was not a recent unauthorised encroachment as alleged.

Without issuing notice to the appellant, the Tribunal constituted a Joint Committee comprising officials of the District Administration and other authorities. Based on the committee's inspection report, the NGT concluded that the temple had been constructed on open space and that the construction was raised sometime in 2016. It accordingly directed the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad and the Municipal Corporation, Ghaziabad to remove the temple and allied structures. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues and Court's Observations

Whether the NGT had jurisdiction under Section 14 to direct removal of an alleged encroachment involving violation of Municipal and Town Planning Laws

The appellant's counsel contended that the NGT had acted wholly without jurisdiction, as the case involved no substantial question relating to environment as defined under the NGT Act, and that the alleged violation concerned Municipal Laws and Town Planning regulations — neither of which finds a place in Schedule I of the Act.

The Supreme Court examined Section 14 of the NGT Act, which vests the Tribunal with jurisdiction over civil cases involving "a substantial question relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment)" — but only where such question "arises out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I."

The Court then turned to Section 2(m) of the Act, which defines "substantial question relating to environment" to mean instances involving direct violation of a specific statutory environmental obligation affecting the community at large, or where the gravity of environmental or property damage is substantial, or where damage to public health is broadly measurable, or where environmental consequences relate to a specific activity or point source of pollution.

Schedule I of the NGT Act enumerates seven central environmental laws within the Tribunal's jurisdiction: The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977; The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991; and The Biological Diversity Act, 2002.

The Court noted that the RWA's application was premised entirely on violation of Municipal Laws and the Town Planning Act — neither of which appears in Schedule I. Since the jurisdictional condition precedent — that the substantial question relating to environment must arise from a Schedule I statute — was not fulfilled, the Tribunal had acted without jurisdiction.

"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."

Violation of Principles of Natural Justice

An additional grievance of the appellant was that the order constituting the Joint Committee — which formed the very basis of the NGT's direction for removal — was passed without issuing any notice to him. The Supreme Court took note of this procedural infirmity as well, and while disposing of the appeals, specifically directed that no action shall be taken against the appellants without issuing notice to them and the affected parties.

Decision

Allowing the appeals, the Supreme Court quashed and set aside the NGT order dated 26 July 2022 in its entirety. Liberty was, however, reserved to the RWA to approach the competent authority under the relevant Municipal or Town Planning laws for redressal of its grievance regarding the alleged encroachment. The Court made clear that any future action against the appellants must be preceded by proper notice.

The judgment authoritatively establishes that the NGT's jurisdiction is not at large — it is tethered to the specific statutes in Schedule I. Complaints rooted in violations of Municipal Laws, urban planning regulations, or general encroachment law cannot clothe themselves in environmental garb to invoke NGT jurisdiction. The appropriate remedy in such cases lies before the competent municipal or civil authority, not the Tribunal.

Date of Decision: 11 March 2026