1. Appeal against National Green Tribunal directions to remove alleged encroachments on forest land, including structures used by a charitable leprosy rehabilitation centre. (Para 1 , 2 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 1256
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Anand Gram Society Hansens Disease (Leprosy) Rehabilitation Centre - Appellant
Versus
Dy. Conservator Of Forest, Pune & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos.7313-7314 Of 2019
Decided On : 17-12-2024
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Sudhanshu S Chaudhari, Sr. Adv., Mr. Mahesh Prakash Shinde, Adv., Mr. Vatsalya Vigya, AOR, Ms. Pranjal Chapalgaonkar, Adv., Ms. Gautami Yadav, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv., Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv., Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR, Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, AOR, Mr. Brij Kishor Sah, Adv., Mr. Adarsh Kumar Pandey, Adv., Mr. Vignesh Singh, Adv., Mr. Aditya S. Jadhav, Adv., Mr. Ankit Sahu, Adv., Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, Adv., Mr. Pai Amit, AOR, Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Adv., Mr. Kushal Dube, Adv.
For the Appellant : Mr. Sudhanshu S Chaudhari, Sr. Adv., Mr. Mahesh Prakash Shinde, Adv., Mr. Vatsalya Vigya, AOR, Ms. Pranjal Chapalgaonkar, Adv., Ms. Gautami Yadav, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv., Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv., Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR, Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, AOR, Mr. Brij Kishor Sah, Adv., Mr. Adarsh Kumar Pandey, Adv., Mr. Vignesh Singh, Adv., Mr. Aditya S. Jadhav, Adv., Mr. Ankit Sahu, Adv., Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, Adv., Mr. Pai Amit, AOR, Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Adv., Mr. Kushal Dube, Adv.
The Tribunal must observe principles of natural justice and provide fair hearing before issuing directions affecting parties' rights.
Headnote:(A) National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Principles of Natural Justice - The Tribunal issued sweeping directions without determining whether the subject area is forest land and without granting opportunity to the appellant-Society to establish its position. The Tribunal failed to consider the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the operation of the Leprosy Cure Centre. (Paras 7, 8, 9)
(B) Encroachment - The Tribunal must consider the bonafides of the applicant and provide a reasonable opportunity to affected parties before passing adverse orders. (Paras 9, 11)
Facts of the case:
The appellant-Society, running a Leprosy Cure Centre, challenged the Tribunal's order directing removal of structures without proper inquiry into the land status and the Society's rights.
Findings of Court:
The appeals were allowed, and the Tribunal's order was set aside, emphasizing the need for fair hearing and consideration of the appellant's charitable purpose.
Issues: The main issues included the determination of land status and the rights of the appellant-Society.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Tribunal must observe natural justice and consider the context of charitable operations before issuing directions.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to sweeping removal orders issued without determining the land's status as forest land or providing an opportunity for bonafide users to be heard. (Para 3 , 5 , 7 )
3. The Tribunal violated natural justice by issuing omnibus directions without verifying forest land status or considering the charitable nature of the occupancy versus commercial ventures. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
4. Quasi-judicial bodies must adhere to principles of natural justice, verify the bonafides of applicants, and ensure affected parties receive a reasonable opportunity to be heard. (Para 7 , 9 , 13 )
5. Appeals allowed; impugned orders set aside for the appellant and similarly affected non-commercial users, while preserving remedies against commercial encroachers. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
6. Must a quasi-judicial tribunal provide a hearing before ordering the removal of structures on alleged forest land?
Yes. The court held that the Tribunal failed to observe principles of natural justice by issuing sweeping directions without determining if the area was notified forest land or granting bonafide users an opportunity to establish their rights. (Para 7 , 13 )
7. What is the duty of a Tribunal regarding the bonafides and locus of an applicant?
Tribunals must consider the bonafides and locus of the person approaching them. If an applicant does not come with clean hands or seeks to settle scores, the Tribunal must give affected parties a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate the applicant's lack of bonafide intention. (Para 9 )
8. Should the nature of the occupancy be considered when ordering the removal of encroachments?
Yes. The court observed that Tribunals should consider whether strict parameters should be relaxed in extraordinary circumstances, such as when a site is used for the welfare and medical treatment of patients rather than as a commercial venture. (Para 8 )
ORDER :
1. Anand Gram Society Hansens Disease (Leprosy) Rehabilitation Centre is in appeal before us challenging judgment dated 26.05.2017 and order dated 23.01.2018, passed by the National Green Tribunal, Western Zone, Pune (for short, `the Tribunal’) in Application No. 115/2015 and OA No. 120/2017.
2. It may be mentioned that the first order dated 26.05.2017 was passed by the Tribunal in Application No. 115/2015 (WZ). The said order was passed at the instance of a resident of Pune, who claimed forest land was being destroyed due to encroachments. The application apparently referred to some survey numbers of different villages where encroachments like (i) construction of road; (ii) construction by Pricast India Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.; (iii) road made on the forest land; (iv) road for goods transportation and houses; and (v) stone mines for construction of RCC used for building houses were existing.
3. Regardless of the categorical stand taken by some of the respondents that they have nothing to do with the forest land and have not encroached upon it in any manner, the Tribunal, without assigning any reason, and without any discussion on the issues jumped to a conclusion and issued a sweeping direction to the (i) Principal Chief Secretary (Forest) (ii) Principal Chief Conservator (Forest), (iii) Chief Conservator of Forest, and (iv) Collector, Pune “to take steps to remove all the said encroachments within three weeks in accordance with law and restitute the environment”. The other respondents were directed to extend full cooperation.
4. Thereafter, it seems that some proceedings akin to contempt proceedings, through O.A. No. 120/2017, were initiated and when the matter was taken up for hearing on 23.01.2018, one Dy. Conservator of Forest was present, who did not have complete instructions on facts, for which the case was passed over. Subsequently, a direction was issued to the Chief Conservator of Forest to conduct spot inspection/survey of the area along with District Collector and submit a report about the factual aspects of the structures built on the land in question. The Director General of Police was directed to provide police assistance to remove the structures etc.
5. The appellant is an NGO, which runs a Public Charitable Trust at Dudulgaon, Pune, Maharashtra and has been working for the welfare and rehabilitation of leprosy patients since 1965. The total area acquired by the appellant-Society is three acres with a 6 meter wide access road of 500 meters length. Since the appellant- Society has also been directed to remove the structures where leprosy patients are being treated for decades, the instant appeals were filed, in which we directed to maintain status quo at the site, vide order dated 13.09.2019.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the material placed on record.
7. We are constrained to highlight that the Tribunal has failed to observe the principles of natural justice and has passed sweeping directions without determining as to whether the subject area is a forest land and if so, whether it has been duly notified under the relevant statutes. Similarly, no opportunity was granted to the bonafide users of the site like the appellant-Society to establish as to whether the Leprosy Cure Centre was being run with or without prior permission of the concerned authorities.
8. The issue as to whether the strict parameters are liable to be relaxed in a case of extraordinary circumstances has not been considered by the Tribunal. What is the purpose of the Charitable Trust, whether it is being run for the welfare of the leprosy patients and providing them timely medical treatment, and whether the Leprosy Cure Centre also deserves to be uprooted from the site treating like any commercial venture, are several factors which the Tribunal ought to have kept in mind before issuing the omnibus directions.
9. The other danger which quasi Tribunals like, the National Green Tribunal, must keep in mi
