Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Prakash Dattaram Bhandari and Sandeep Balchandra Yadav, filed separate writ petitions challenging the demolition of their constructions allegedly on mangrove land. The respondents, the Tehsildar and another, had initiated demolition action relying on a decision in PIL No.87/2006 decided on 17/09/2018, which directed that all constructions within 50 meters of mangrove areas must be stopped. The petitioners had previously filed a suit (No.638 of 2019) in the City Civil Court, Bombay, seeking interim relief, which was rejected on 08/03/2019, and an appeal against that order was also dismissed. The petitioners then approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, contending that the disputed question of whether their structures were within 50 meters of the mangrove area should be decided before demolition. The court observed that the question of fact raised in the matter need not be adjudicated in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. The court also noted the decision in PIL No.87/2006, which mandated stopping all constructions within 50 meters of mangroves regardless of land ownership. Keeping open liberty for the petitioners to avail appropriate remedies available in law, the court rejected both writ petitions.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Disputed Questions of Fact - Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 - The court held that disputed questions of fact, such as whether a structure falls within 50 meters of mangrove area, cannot be adjudicated in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The petitioners were directed to avail appropriate remedies available in law. (Paras 1-3) B) Environmental Law - Mangrove Protection - Buffer Zone - PIL No.87/2006 decided on 17/09/2018 - The court referred to the decision in PIL No.87/2006 which directed that all constructions within 50 meters on all sides of mangrove areas shall be forthwith stopped, regardless of ownership. The petitioners' challenge to demolition action based on this direction was not entertained. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to adjudicate disputed questions of fact regarding the location of construction relative to mangrove areas, and whether interim relief should be granted pending determination of such facts.
Final Decision
The court rejected both writ petitions, keeping open liberty for the petitioners to avail appropriate remedies available in law.
Law Points
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- 1950
- Mangrove protection
- PIL No.87/2006
- 50-meter buffer zone
- disputed questions of fact
