The Supreme Court on Tuesday has permitted Rajendra Tiwari to pursue before the Rajasthan High Court his challenge to the revised map of the Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary, observing that the controversy over the sanctuary’s actual boundaries must first be settled by the High Court.
The bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing appeal arising from proceedings before the National Green Tribunal (NGT). The dispute concerns the identification and demarcation of the Nahargarh Reserve Forest and Wildlife Sanctuary and the status of the revenue area of village Nahargarh.
During the hearing, the appellant argued that the original notification declaring the sanctuary expressly included the revenue area of village Nahargarh. He contended that the Forest Department had subsequently altered the sanctuary map without obtaining the requisite approval from the National Board for Wildlife. He also relied on an earlier Rajasthan High Court direction that there should be no change in the boundaries of the existing sanctuary.
The Bench, however, pointed out that the revised map issued by the Forest Department was already under challenge before the High Court. It observed that the NGT had rightly treated the demarcation controversy as an issue to be considered by the High Court and that it would be difficult to presume a violation before the boundary dispute was resolved. The Court held:
“
“Unless that demarcation controversy is settled by the High Court, it is difficult to presume anything. So far as the demarcation of the reserve forest for Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary is concerned, the appellant has already approached the High Court and is well advised to pursue the same. It goes without saying that the High Court will consider all the contentions that may be raised by the appellant or other public-spirited persons with respect to the identification of the actual reserve forest area, Nahargarh Reserve Forest and the Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary. All concerned, including the official respondents, shall abide by such determination, subject to its attaining finality.”
The appellant also referred to a report of the monitoring committee, which, according to him, had found that the disputed area fell within the sanctuary. The Bench questioned why the appellant had not placed the relevant material before the NGT, observing that a party should assist the Tribunal with the material on which it seeks to rely before challenging its decision.
The Court also took note of the Forest Department’s subsequent actions and reports. However, it declined to rely on subsequent developments that had not formed part of the material considered by the NGT, leaving it open to the appellant to pursue appropriate remedies in respect of those developments.