1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3571 OF 2019

SARV JAN KALYAN SEWA SAMITI            APPELLANT(s)

                         VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENT(s)

O R D E R

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J

Appeal admitted.

On 8 February 2019, the following order was passed by

this Court, when a challenge was addressed to the order

of the National Green Tribunal1 dated 5 December 2018:

“Since the proceedings are still pending before the National Green Tribunal, it is not necessary for this Court to entertain the civil appeal at this stage.  The earlier order dated 30 October 2018 and the subsequent order dated 5 December 2018  (the  latter  is  impugned  in  the  present appeal) are interlocutory.  Any decision by the Ministry  of  Environment,  Forests  and  Climate Change, Government of India and by the Forest Department of the Government of Haryana must be in accordance with law.

Since  the  OA  is  still  pending  before  the Tribunal, this shall not come in the way of the appellant pursuing its remedies in the pending proceedings.

The  appeal  is  accordingly  disposed  of.   No costs.”

On 5 December 2018, the NGT had, while adverting to

its earlier order dated 30 October 2018, reiterated that

the fourth respondent herein may submit a proposal to the

1 NGT

2

Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change2 and

to  the  State  Government.   The  proposal  was  to  be

considered by the State of Haryana and by the MOEF&CC.

When the earlier Civil Appeal came up before this

Court on 8 February 2019, as the order indicates, it was

disposed of since the direction contained in the order

dated  5  December  2018  was  interlocutory  in  nature.

However, this Court observed that:

(i) Any decision by the MOEF&CC and by the Forest

Department  of  the  Government  of  Haryana  must  be  in

accordance with law;

(ii) Since the Original Application3 was still pending

before the NGT, this shall not come in the way of the

appellant  pursuing  its  remedies  in  the  pending

proceedings.

Following the order passed by this Court, a two-Judge

Bench  of  the  NGT  passed  the  following  order  on  11

February 2019:

“At the outset, we have been informed that the order dated on 05.12.2018 was challenged by the applicant  before  the  Hon’ble  Supreme  Court. However, the said civil appeal has been decided without any interference by the Hon’ble Court. Therefore, the steps to be taken in furtherance of  the  proposal  given  on  05.12.2018  should  be expedited.  The State of Haryana, before which the  proposal  is  pending  for  consideration,  to decide  the  same  within  two  weeks  from  today. Thereafter,  the  matter  be  sent  to  Regional Officer, MoEF at Chandigarh who shall consider and decide within two weeks from date of receipt of the proposal from State of Haryana.

2 MOEF&CC 3 OA

3

Accordingly, Original Application No.124 of 2017 stands disposed of, with no order as to cost.

M.A. No.208 of 2017 This  application  does  not  survive  for consideration as the main appeal itself stands dismissed.

M.A.  No.208  of  2017  stands  disposed  of accordingly.”

The above order dated 11 February 2019 is the subject

matter of the present Civil Appeal.

On behalf of the appellant, it has been submitted

that as a result of the impugned order of the NGT, the

appellant  has  been  completely  shut  out  from  seeking

redress in the proceedings which were pending before the

NGT.  It has been urged that the clear intendment of the

order of this Court was that all objections which the

appellant has in regard to the proposal for the exchange

of land with forest land alleged to have been encroached

upon would have to be considered by the NGT.  The NGT has

obviated  that  process  by  simply  disposing  of  the  OA

without considering the objections.

On the other hand, Mr. C.U. Singh, learned senior

counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the  fourth  respondent,

submits  that  the  fourth  respondent  has  already  taken

steps to dismantle and shift the wall and the impugned

order  of  the  NGT  was  in  furtherance  of  the  earlier

directions which have already been issued on 30 October

2018  and  5  December  2018.   Moreover,  it  has  been

submitted  that  the  Court  may  at  best  delete  the  last

4

sentence of the order of the NGT by which the OA has been

disposed of so that the OA may be restored to file for

consideration  of  such  objections  as  the  appellant  may

have.   Alternatively,  it  has  been  submitted  that  the

appellant may be left at liberty to pursue its remedies

once a final decision has been arrived at by the State of

Haryana and by the MOEF&CC.

At the outset, it is necessary to observe that the

order of this Court dated 8 February 2019 indicates that

the  reason  why  the  Court  did  not  interfere,  at  that

stage, with the order dated 5 December 2018 was because

it was of an interlocutory nature.  At the same time,

this Court observed that any decision by the MOEF&CC as

well  as  by  the  State  Government  would  have  to  be  in

accordance with law.  More significantly, since the OA

was pending, this Court observed that this shall not come

in the way of the appellant pursuing its remedies in the

pending proceedings.  We find from the impugned order of

the NGT dated 11 February 2019 that it proceeded on the

basis of what it was informed as the crux of the order of

this Court.  Had the NGT awaited a copy of the order of

this  Court,  it  would  have  been  in  a  position  to

appreciate the contents of the order which was passed on

8 February 2019.  The consequence of the impugned order

is to effectively shut out the appellant from addressing

its objections to the proposed exchange before the NGT.

In  our  view,  this  course  of  action,  which  has  been

5

followed by the NGT, is indefensible.  The NGT ought to

have, in deference to the order passed by this Court,

allowed the process which had been initiated before the

State  and  MOEF&CC  to  continue,  but  to  permit  the

appellant  in  the  pending  proceedings  to  address  its

objections in accordance with law.

We are, therefore, unimpressed with the submissions

which have been urged on behalf of the fourth respondent

and, for that matter, on behalf of the State of Haryana.

The NGT was duty bound to follow the order of this Court

and we are constrained to observe that this has not been

done.

For the above reasons, we allow the appeal and set

aside the impugned order of the NGT dated 11 February

2019 in its entirety.  We accordingly restore OA 124 of

2017 to the file of the NGT and now expect that the NGT

shall  abide  by  the  order  passed  by  this  Court  on  8

February 2019.

The Appeal is accordingly disposed of.  No costs.

.............................J.  (DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD)

.............................J.  (HEMANT GUPTA)

NEW DELHI APRIL 16, 2019

6

ITEM NO.15               COURT NO.11               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.3571 OF 2019

SARV JAN KALYAN SEWA SAMITI            APPELLANT(s)

                         VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENT(s)

(WITH IA No.59463/2019-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. )   Date : 16-04-2019 This appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :           HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

For Appellant(s) Mr. N. Hariharan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Varun Mahalawat, Adv. Mr. Siddharth S. Yadav, Adv. Mr. Nishant Anand, Adv. Mr. Varun Deswal, Adv. Ms. Mallika, Adv. Mr. Prateek, Adv.

                  Abhigya, AOR Adity Vaibhav Singh, Adv. Ms. Rekha Ahgara, Adv. Ms. Sneha Siddharth, Adv.

                   For Respondent(s) Mr. C.U. Singh, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Shyel Trehan, Adv. Mr. Raghav Anand, Adv. Mr. Aman Shukla, Adv.

                 Ms. Liz Mathew, AOR

Mr. Anil Grover, AAG Ms. Noopur Singhal, Adv. Mr. Rahul Khurana, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, Adv.

                    UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

                             O R D E R

Appeal admitted.

The  Appeal  is  disposed  of  in  terms  of  the  signed

reportable order.  No costs.

7

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

 (SANJAY KUMAR-I)                (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)      AR-CUM-PS                           COURT MASTER

(Signed reportable order is placed on the file)