Disposed

Appa Pada Rahivashi Seva Sangh v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Jan 2008WP/2025/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of connected writ petitions concerning encroachments in Sanjay Gandhi National Park. The Court upheld the cut-off date of 1st January 1995 for rehabilitation eligibility, extended the implementation timeline by six months to aid rehabilitation, and ordered the removal of ineligible occupants within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directions for rehabilitation of eligible encroachers, removal of ineligible occupants within 8 weeks, restoration of forest area, and extension of scheme implementation period by 6 months.

Appa Pada Rahivashi Seva Sangh Vs State of… — Environment and Pollution | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

-1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2025 OF 2004

¶5

Appa Pada Rahivashi Seva Sangh

¶6

... Petitioner

¶7

versus

¶8

State of Maharashtra and others ...

¶9

Respondents

¶10

Mr. Mahesh Londhe, instructed by M/s. S. Udeshi & Co., for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. R.M. Kadam, Advocate General, with Mr. D.A. Nalavade, Government Pleader, for the State in both matters.

¶12

Mr. G.D. Uttangale, instructed by Uttangale & Co., for the SRA in both matters.

¶13

WITH

¶14

WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 76 OF 2007.

¶15

Nirmala Samant Prabhavalkar and another ... Petitioners

¶16

versus

¶17

State of Maharashtra and others

¶18

...Respondents

¶19

Mr. M.M. Vashi for the petitioners.

¶20

Mr. G.S. Patel, instructed by M/s. M.V. Jayakar & Co., for the petitioner in disposed of Writ Petition No. 305 of 1995.

¶21

CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. &

¶22

J.P. DEVADHAR, J.

¶23

DATE: JANUARY 10, 2008 .

¶24

-2-

¶25

P.C.

¶26

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at great length.

¶27

It needs to be noticed that Public Interest Litigation No. 305 of 1995 was disposed of by a judgment of this Court dated 15^th September, 2003. Besides hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we have also perused various orders passed in the present writ petition, particularly the order dated 3^rd October, 2007 by which the writ petition practically was disposed of but was kept pending before the Court for the purposes of ensuring that the encroachments are removed and the directions contained in the judgment are carried out by the concerned authorities in its true spirit and letter.

¶28

It may be noticed that the Conservator of Forest and Director of Sanjay Gandhi National Park had filed its affidavit dated 12^th September, 2007 which obviously had been taken into consideration by the Court while passing the order dated 3^rd October, 2007. Thereafter, in the connected writ petitions, the State Government has also filed another affidavit wherein they have prayed for grant of further time/extension therein for the purpose of complying with the directions

¶29

-3-

¶30

particularly with reference to rehabilitation of the persons who are to be removed from the Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Borivli.

¶31

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, these petitions are disposed of with the following directions:-

¶32

(i) It is conceded before us that relevant cut off date for determination of eligibility is 1^st January, 1995.

¶33

(ii) As the State Government has no objection to accept the money from the persons who are eligible but did not pay the sum of Rs. 7,000/- to be covered under the rehabilitation scheme formulated by the State Government, the Government would now accept the same, if the payments are made within two weeks from today.

¶34

(iii) If the eligible persons make the payment as demanded by the State within two weeks from today and satisfy the concerned authorities of their eligibility, the State would include these persons also under the rehabilitation scheme and make efforts to resettle them as per its policy.

¶35

(iv) The persons who are ineligible and are unauthorised occupants in any part of the Sanjay Gandhi National Park shall be removed in accordance with law within eight weeks from today.

¶36

-4-

¶37

(v) The State authorities shall ensure that no unauthorised activity is carried on in the entire park.

¶38

(vi) All unauthorised constructions shall be removed from the area of Sanjay Gandhi National Park within eight week from today.

¶39

(vii) The authorities shall also ensure that appropriate steps are taken for afforestation of the forest area wherever the forests were destroyed during the course of this long period. Resultantly ensure that the forest area in the National Park is restored.

¶40

(viii) The Government shall appoint appropriate experts for this purpose and shall submit the report to the Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, who in turn shall pass appropriate directions for compliance of the recommendation, subject to their acceptance by the State Government.

¶41

(ix) All steps shall be taken by different agencies of the State including the Forest Department and the Police Department to ensure that no fresh encroachments are made in any part of the Park and the boundary wall of the Sanjay Gandhi National Park is properly maintained. The Officers concerned would be liable for violation of these conditions, in the event any further encroachments come up on any part of the Sanjay Gandhi National Park.

¶42

(x) The Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Government of

¶43

-5-

¶44

Maharashtra, shall be responsible for carrying out the the directions. In the event of any default, the Court would be compelled to take appropriate action.

¶45

(xi) The authorities would be at liberty to conduct a survey i.e. Spot inspection for the purpose of determining the removal of unauthorised occupation/construction.

¶46

We have also perused the affidavit filed by the State Government on 12^th September, 2007, particularly paragraphs 4 to 6. It is clear that the State has been taking up the matter with some seriousness and has made efforts to rehabilitate the eligible persons who have complied with the terms and conditions in accordance with the policy of the State Government. We have no hesitation in extending the period for implementation of the State policy which is covered under the orders of the Court. Ultimately, it is a human problem and due care should be taken that the park is cleared of all encroachments but with due regard to protection to life as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, we extend the period for implementation of the scheme as prayed by the State Government for a period of six months with liberty to the State to move for further extension, if there are unavoidable circumstances.

¶47

-6-

¶48

We make it clear that the persons covered under this order and would be entitled to continue in possession are only those persons who are eligible and have already paid or to pay the requisite amount within the time now granted.

¶49

We further make it clear that implementation of this order would be subject to such orders which have been passed by the Supreme Court of India, particularly the order dated 16^th July, 2007. However, all other orders passed by this Court shall be controlled now by the order passed today.

¶50

Both the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

¶51

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶52

J.P. DEVADHAR, J.

Appa Pada Rahivashi Seva Sangh v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Appa Pada Rahivashi Seva Sangh v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balkrishna Ramdhar Lakhotia Vs Smt. Pratima Sunil Lakhoita

Sunil Lakhotia Vs Pratima Lakhotia

Shri R.K. Shinde and Another Vs Shekoba Auto Private Limited and Others

nirmala samant-prabhavalkar and Anr. Vs state of maharashtra (through the principal secratary,revenue and foreste department,mum and 3 Ors.

Sakharam Parasharam Ghaste Vs Municipal Corporation of Brihn Mumbai and Anr.

Chandramani Devraj Tiwari Vs the Sec-Ramdulari B.Tiwari Sanskrutik Kendra andORS.