O R D E R

1. These appeals are directed against the Judgment and order dated 26.07.2022 passed by the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi in Original Application No. 419 of 2021, by which the Tribunal has directed the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad and Municipal Corporation, Ghaziabad to remove the construction of a temple and associated structure allegedly raised on the land shown as open space/Park in Sector – 16A, Vasundhara, District Ghaziabad.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of these appeals in a nutshell are that Respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (in short ‘the Act’) alleging encroachment and illegal construction of a temple on an area earmarked for park. The Respondent No.1 sought removal of structure along with other consequential directions.

DJD1R a 8 i a e gy :t a1 iae t s8 an: o : lt2 l 5n yK04: s 2u I i 6m S g . n T0ae 3rd .A1 br6oyra

3. The Appellant filed a reply in which it was pleaded that even in the Revised Layout Plan dated 14.07.2004 prepared by Uttar Pradesh Housing Board, the temple has been shown to be in existence. It was denied that the temple either has been constructed on an open land/park or that any area has been encroached upon.

4. The Tribunal by an order dated 26.07.2002, inter alia, constituted a Joint Committee comprising all officials of District Administration and other authorities, which inspected the site and submitted its report. On the basis of the aforesaid Report, the Tribunal concluded that the temple is constructed on an open space and the construction was raised sometime in the year 2016. The Tribunal, accordingly, directed removal of the temple and the allied structure. In the aforesaid factual background, these appeals have been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order constituting the Committee was passed without issuing any notice to the Appellant. It is also contended that under Section 14 of the Act, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to pass an order directing removal of an encroachment and, therefore, the impugned order is per se without jurisdiction.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Respondent No.1 submitted that the temple has been constructed on the land on an area which is earmarked for the purpose of a park. Our attention has also been invited to the counter affidavit filed by the official Respondents wherein it is pleaded that temple has been constructed on an open land earmarked for the purpose of a park. It is submitted that no interference with the order passed by the Tribunal is called for in these appeals.

7. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. Section 14 of the Act reads as under :-

“14. Tribunal to settle disputes -

(1)The Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment), is involved and such question arises out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I.

(2) The Tribunal shall hear the disputes arising from the questions referred to in sub-section (1) and settle such disputes and pass order thereon.

(3) No application for adjudication of dispute under this section shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a period of six months from the date on which the cause of action for such dispute first arose:

Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days.”

8. The jurisdictional fact necessary for invocation of the provisions of the Act is that there must be existence of a substantial question of law relating to environment. The substantial question of law has actually been defined in the Statute under Section 2(m) of the Act, wh