Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Narender Bhardwaj vs M/S 108 Super Complex R.W.A on 11 March, 2026
Author: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Bench: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5921 OF 2022
NARENDER BHARDWAJ Appellant(s)
VERSUS
M/S 108 SUPER COMPLEX R.W.A. & ORS. Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9082 OF 2022
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
Signature Not Verified
illegal construction of a temple on an area earmarked
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2026.03.16
18:18:54 IST
Reason:
for park. The Respondent No.1 sought removal of
structure along with other consequential directions.
2
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.
3
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
4further 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, which is extracted as under :-
“(m) “substantial question relating to
environment’ shall include an instance
where,
(i) there is a direct violation of a
specific statutory environmental
obligation by a person by which,(A) the community at large other than an
individual or group of individuals is
affected or likely to be affected by the
environmental consequences; or(B) the gravity of damage to the
environment or property is substantial;
or
(C) the damage to public health is
broadly measurable;
(ii) the environmental consequences
relate to a specific activity or a point
source of pollution”
9. Further, the substantial question of law is
integrally connected to the Statute specified in
Scheduled I, which is extracted as under :-
“Schedule I of the National Green
Tribunal, 2010 lists 7 central
environmental laws that define the
tribunal’s jurisdiction over civil cases
involving substantial environmental
questions. These acts are crucial for the
enforcement of environmental legal rights
5and granting compensation for damage.
The 7 acts included in Schedule I are:
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
The Biological Diversity Act, 2002”
10. Thus, 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. The Tribunal, therefore, had no
jurisdiction to direct removal of an alleged
encroachment and alleged illegal construction which
according to Respondent No.1 was raised in violation
of the laws not specified in Schedule I to the Act.
The impugned order passed by the Tribunal is,
therefore, without jurisdiction. It is accordingly
6
quashed and set aside.
11. However, liberty is reserved to the Residents
Welfare Association [RWA] to approach the competent
authority seeking redressal of its grievance. Needless
to state that no action shall be taken against the
Appellants without issuing notice to them and the
affected parties.
12. The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of.
13. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any,
is/are disposed of.
……………………………………………………………………….J.
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]
……………………………………………………………………J.
[ALOK ARADHE]
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 11, 2026.
7
ITEM NO.25 COURT NO.6 SECTION XVII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 5921/2022
NARENDER BHARDWAJ Appellant(s)
VERSUS
M/S 108 SUPER COMPLEX R.W.A. & ORS. Respondent(s)
IA No. 126747/2022 – EX-PARTE STAY
IA No. 198673/2022 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 126748/2022 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
WITH
C.A. No. 9082/2022 (XVII)
Date : 11-03-2026 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, Adv.
Mr. Mani Munjal, Adv.
Ms. Marbiang Khongwir, Adv.
Mr. Parth Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Saurabh Singh, Adv.
Mr. Umesh Dubey, Adv.
Ms. Madhulika, Adv.
Mr. Anand Kumar Rai, Adv.
Mr. Radeesh Kumar Mt, Adv.
Mr. Amulya Dev Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Manoj K. Mishra, AOR
Mr. Vishnu Jain, Adv.
Ms. Divya Jyoti Singh, AOR
Ms. Mani Munjal, Adv.
Ms. Marbiang Khongwir, Adv.
Mr. Parth Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Saurabh Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Krishna Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Nandani Gupta, Adv.
Dr. Mrs. Vipin Gupta, AOR
Mr. Dhaval Mehrotra, AOR
Ms. Aditi Desai, Adv.
8
Mr. Pradeep Misra, AOR
Mr. Daleep Dhyani, Adv.
Mr. Anupam Misra, Adv.
Mr. Suraj Singh, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Kumar Singh, AOR
Mr. Malak Manish Bhatt, AOR
Mr. Avijit Roy, AOR
Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order.
2. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed
of.
(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (NIDHI WASON)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)
