Mumbai: Pulling up the Maharashtra government for its delay in addressing illegal encroachments within the Sanjay Gandhi National Park (SGNP), the Bombay High Court has directed a survey of eligible encroachers and the immediate removal of those not covered by the 2011 cut-off date for rehabilitation.

A bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar, on Tuesday, demanded all possible legal steps by the authorities concerned. To prevent further encroachment within the SGNP boundaries, the court has ordered the state to prepare a comprehensive plan for fencing the park and grant administrative and financial sanctions.

“It (SGNP) is a gift of nature to Mumbai’s population… it was expected of the state and its officials to have taken all possible steps to preserve the same and to comply with the orders of the court passed way back in 1997,” the bench observed.

Bombay HC Expresses Dismay At The Delay

The court expressed dismay at the delay in the boundary wall. Of the identified 56km high-risk stretch, only 30.2 km had been completed as of May 2024, with a mere 1.2 km added since then. “Your officers are not rising to the occasion. Why are you testing the court’s patience? If they are still not listening… we will summon them to face contempt,” the bench remarked.

The court noted that despite a 2003 judgment mandating the relocation of slum dwellers whose names were on electoral rolls as of 1995, the state had unilaterally extended the cutoff date to 2011. “This amounts to modifying the earlier judgment. If you wanted to extend the deadline, you should have sought the court’s permission,” the bench said.

State Advocate General Birendra Saraf assured the court that the government was taking steps to comply with its orders, including exploring alternate plots for rehabilitation and clearing post-1995 encroachments in phases. However, the court reiterated.

“Let us be clear, the court’s concern is the removal of encroachments, not rehabilitation. That is your concern.”

Challenges Highlighted

Highlighting the challenges, Janak Dwarkadas, counsel for the NGO Conservation Action Trust (CAT), on whose PIL the 1997 and 2003 directions were passed, said, “Illegal commercial establishments are thriving, creating mini townships. This is not just an eco-sensitive zone; it’s also a national park. We are one of very few cities in the world which has a national park inside its boundaries. Somewhere this game has to stop.”

Direction Given By The Court

The court also directed the state to survey the area for unauthorised commercial activities, including ready-mix cement plants, and take action against those operating without permission. In October 2024, the state had informed the court that they would be rehabilitating the eligible slum dwellers on a 90 acres of land from a total of 190 acres at Marol-Maroshi in western suburbs.

The move was opposed by Conservation Action Trust; NGO Vanashakti and activist Zoru Bhathena, highlighting that the plot falls inside Aarey Colony and parts of this plot is a Notified Forest. Being an eco-sensitive zone, no development can be undertaken.

During the hearing last week, Saraf had informed the bench that conditional development can be undertaken with permission from the Wildlife Board. However, on Tuesday, Saraf clarified that in a meeting held last month, the Wildlife Board held that no further development proposals will be allowed further in the eco-sensitive zone of SGNP. Also, the Supreme Court, on January 10, directed the tree authority of BMC not to allow any further tree felling in Aarey Colony without its permission. In view of these “developments”, Saraf sought more time to identify new land for the same. The HC then directed the Collector to conduct a survey and identify new land / lands for constructing rehabilitation tenements for the eligible encroachers.

The additional chief secretaries of the housing and forest departments submitted affidavits assuring the court of their commitment to compliance. However, the court expressed scepticism, stating, “Since 1997, the fencing remains incomplete. This is criminal if I am permitted to say.”

Acknowledging the assurances, the HC directed the Chief Secretary to personally oversee future compliance, adding, “We hope and trust that the state machinery will abide by the court’s orders and ensure the park is restored in its original shape and insulated from future encroachment.” The HC has kept the matter for hearing on March 3 and directed the state to file affidavits showing updates and compliance.