Supreme Court overturns NGT order on temple removal: No “substantial environmental question” involved

Background of the dispute

The case titled Narender Bhardwaj Vs 108 Super Complex R.W.A. & Ors. (Supreme Court of India) arose out of a challenge to an order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, dated 26.07.2022 in Original Application No. 419 of 2021.

The controversy centred around a temple and related structures constructed in Sector–16A, Vasundhara, District Ghaziabad. A Residents Welfare Association contended that the temple had been put up by encroaching upon land reserved as open space/park. On that basis, the RWA invoked Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 seeking:

  • Removal of the temple and allied constructions; and
  • Ancillary and consequential directions against the concerned authorities.

The NGT accepted the RWA’s plea and directed the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad and the Municipal Corporation, Ghaziabad to remove the temple and associated structures. This direction formed the core of the appeals before the Supreme Court.

Application before the NGT and stand of the parties

RWA’s allegations before the NGT

Respondent No. 1, a Residents Welfare Association, approached the NGT under Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 alleging:

  • The land in question had been earmarked as a park/open area in the approved layout;
  • A temple had been illegally constructed on this park land;
  • Such construction amounted to encroachment and unlawful change of land use; and
  • The NGT should order demolition/removal of the encroachment along with suitable directions to the local authorities.

The claim was not founded on any of the environmental enactments listed in Schedule I to the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, but on alleged violations of municipal and town planning norms.

Appellant’s reply before the NGT

In response, the appellant asserted that:

  • As per the Revised Layout Plan dated 14.07.2004 prepared by the Uttar Pradesh Housing Board, the temple already appeared as an existing structure;
  • The temple had not been put up on land reserved for a park;
  • There was no encroachment upon open space or park area as alleged.

The appellant thus disputed both the allegation of encroachment and the character of the land.

NGT’s proceedings and directions

Constitution of Joint Committee

By order dated 26.07.2002, the NGT:

  • Set up a Joint Committee consisting of officials drawn from the District Administration and other relevant authorities;
  • Directed the Committee to conduct a site inspection;
  • Called for a factual report regarding the nature of the land and the construction in question.

Pursuant to this direction, the Joint Committee inspected the site and submitted its report to the NGT.

Findings of the Committee and NGT’s conclusion

Relying upon the Committee report, the NGT concluded that:

  • The temple structure had been constructed on open space earmarked as a park;
  • The construction appeared to have been raised around the year 2016;
  • The presence of the temple and associated structures amounted to unauthorized construction/encroachment on land reserved as a park.

On that basis, the NGT ordered:

  • Removal of the temple and the allied structures;
  • Compliance by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad and the Municipal Corporation, Ghaziabad.

It was this direction that was challenged before the Supreme Court in the present appeals.

Grounds of challenge before the Supreme Court

The appellant approached the Supreme Court questioning the NGT’s order on two principal grounds.

1. Lack of notice before constituting Committee

The first objection was procedural in nature. It was argued that:

  • The NGT constituted the Joint Committee and directed site inspection without issuing any notice to the appellant;
  • The appellant was thus denied an opportunity to participate at that stage;
  • This omission vitiated the fact-finding process and, consequently, the ultimate order.

2. Inherent lack of jurisdiction under Section 14

The second and more fundamental challenge went to the root of the NGT’s jurisdiction: