Saju George Vs Saji Varghese (Kerala High Court)
Summary: The Kerala High Court dismissed an original petition filed by Saju George under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an ad-interim injunction passed by the Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor, in a civil suit involving boundary fixation and protection of lateral support against quarry blasting operations. The petitioner contended that the civil court lacked jurisdiction because Section 29 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 barred civil courts from entertaining disputes concerning environmental matters. The High Court rejected this contention, holding that the exclusion of civil court jurisdiction under Section 29 is not absolute and must be interpreted in conjunction with Sections 14 and 15 of the Act. The Court clarified that the National Green Tribunal’s jurisdiction extends to disputes involving substantial questions relating to the environment arising from implementation of enactments specified in Schedule I, and does not encompass every dispute arising merely because environmental or quarrying activities are involved.
The petitioner claimed that he had obtained environmental clearance under EC No. 210/Q/2022 dated 1 December 2022 and quarrying permits and licences from the competent statutory authorities. The respondents had instituted O.S. No. 94 of 2026 before the Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor, seeking fixation of the northern boundary of their property and an injunction restraining the concerned defendants from undertaking blasting operations that could destroy or weaken the lateral support and boundaries of their land. The civil court granted an interim injunction restraining blasting activities in the adjoining property. Instead of entering appearance before the trial court or seeking modification of the injunction, the petitioner directly approached the High Court under Article 227, arguing that the suit itself was barred by the NGT Act.
On behalf of the petitioner, it was argued that the existence of an alternative remedy did not prevent the High Court from exercising its constitutional supervisory jurisdiction where the civil court allegedly lacked inherent jurisdiction. Reliance was placed upon Kitex Garments Private Limited Company Vs Umaimath, 2024 (1) KHC 590, and the Supreme Court decision in Ratnagiri Nagar Parishad Vs Gangaram Narayan Ambekar and Others, (2020) 7 SCC 275. The petitioner submitted that all disputes touching upon quarrying operations conducted pursuant to environmental clearance and statutory licences should be adjudicated by the National Green Tribunal and that the civil court had improperly granted an ex parte injunction.
Examining Sections 14, 15 and 29 of the National Green Tribunal Act, the High Court held that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is conditional upon the existence of a substantial environmental question arising from implementation of an enactment specified in Schedule I. Although Section 29 excludes the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters falling within the Tribunal’s statutory powers, that exclusion cannot be interpreted independently of the jurisdiction conferred under Section 14. The Court observed that the Indian Easements Act, 1882 is not one of the enactments included in Schedule I to the NGT Act. The right to claim lateral support is traceable to Section 7 of the Indian Easements Act. Consequently, an ordinary civil dispute concerning fixation of boundaries and protection of proprietary rights does not become an environmental dispute within the exclusive jurisdiction of the NGT merely because quarry blasting is involved. The same reasoning concerning the limited statutory jurisdiction of tribunals and continued availability of civil remedies was subsequently discussed in another Kerala High Court ruling.
The Court further explained that the National Green Tribunal is a statutory body whose powers are confined to the reliefs provided by the legislation creating it. Section 15 authorises relief and compensation for environmental damage, restitution of damaged property and restitution of the environment, but does not confer unrestricted jurisdiction to adjudicate all civil disputes involving proprietary rights. The High Court distinguished the decisions in Kitex Garments and Ratnagiri Nagar Parishad because the disputes in those cases arose directly under enactments included in Schedule I to the NGT Act. Referring to Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court reiterated that civil courts have jurisdiction over civil suits unless such jurisdiction is expressly or impliedly barred.
The High Court also rejected the petitioner’s attempt to invoke Article 227 of the Constitution for obtaining a declaration that the civil suit was not maintainable. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in P. Suresh Vs D. Kalaivani and Others, (2026) SCC OnLine SC 143, the Court observed that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be invoked to reject a plaint. The petitioner had approached the High Court without first pursuing remedies before the trial court. The Court found no justification for interfering with the pending suit merely because the petitioner possessed environmental clearance and statutory licences for quarrying activities. Accordingly, the original petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, the interim stay granted by the High Court was vacated, and the Munsiff Court was permitted to proceed with the suit. The Court expressly clarified that dismissal of the original petition would not prevent the petitioner from raising other available defences before the trial court.
Cases Discussed / Relied Upon
1. Kitex Garments Private Limited Company Vs Umaimath (Kerala High Court); 2024 (1) KHC 590. The petitioner relied upon this judgment to argue that the civil court’s jurisdiction was excluded by the National Green Tribunal Act. The High Court distinguished the decision because the dispute considered therein directly arose under an enactment mentioned in Schedule I to the NGT Act. The decision did not establish that every civil dispute involving environmental activities must be decided by the National Green Tribunal.
2. Ratnagiri Nagar Parishad Vs Gangaram Narayan Ambekar and Others (Supreme Court); (2020) 7 SCC 275. This Supreme Court judgment was relied upon by the petitioner in support of the contention concerning exclusion of civil court jurisdiction in environmental disputes. The Kerala High Court distinguished it on the ground that the controversy involved an enactment specified in Schedule I to the National Green Tribunal Act and did not support an absolute exclusion of ordinary civil court jurisdiction.
3. P. Suresh Vs D. Kalaivani and Others (Supreme Court); (2026) SCC OnLine SC 143. The Kerala High Court referred to this Supreme Court decision for the proposition that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to reject a plaint where the Code of Civil Procedure provides appropriate statutory remedies. The decision supported the Court’s refusal to interfere with the pending civil suit through the original petition.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT OF KERALA HIGH COURT
An ad interim order of injunction in a civil suit is challenged in this Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit and hence the interim order passed is without jurisdiction.
2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the Original Petition is as follows: Petitioner claims to have obtained an Environmental Clearance as per EC No.210/Q/2022 dated 1-12-2022 in respect of Sy No 590/11-1, 590/11-2,590/11-3,590/11-4,590/18-1, 590/18-2, 590/18-3, 590/18-4, 590/12-2, 590-12-3. It is claimed that pursuant to the same, he has obtained quarrying permit and license from statutory authorities. While so, O.S No. 94/2026 was filed for fixation of boundary of northern side of plaint A schedule property and to restrain 5th to 13th defendants from further blasting operations thereby devastating or destroying the lateral support and boundaries or commit any act of waste or damage. On 10.4.2026, the Munsiff court Perumbavoor issued an order in I.A.No. 1 of 2026 restraining respondents 5 to 13 therein or their men and agents from carrying out any blasting operations in the adjacent property of A and B Schedule. Petitioner is the 5th defendant in the suit. Even without entering appearance in the suit and without even seeking to modify the order so passed, the petitioner has filed this Original Petition contending that the suit is not maintainable in view of the bar under Section 29 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (for short “2010 Act”). According to the petitioner, all such suits touching upon the entitlement of the petitioner to carry out the quarrying operation in terms of the permit as well as the Environmental Clearance granted by the authorities must be considered by the National Green Tribunal. The petitioner further submits that in the nature of relief sought for in the suit, the court could not have granted an ad-interim ex parte injunction order.
3. Heard Shri George Poonthottam, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Smt. Nisha George, appearing for the petitioner
4. At the outset itself, this court finds that the Original Petition under Article 227 is not maintainable when alternate avenues are available. When the maintainability of the Original petition was pointed out to the petitioner, it is asserted that, the constitutional rights of the petitioner to approach this court and to seek a declaration that the suit is not maintainable cannot be foreclosed merely because of the availability of the alternative remedy. It is further pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel that, since it is a case of ouster of jurisdiction of civil court, the High Court can interfere in the proceedings. Reference is made to Section 29 of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. In support reliance is placed to the decision of this court in Kitex Garments Private Limited Company Vs Umaimath [2024 (1) KHC 590], and the decision of the Supreme Court in Ratnagiri Nagar Parishad Vs Gangaram Narayan Ambekar and others [2020) 7 SCC 275].
5. The first question to be considered is whether the ouster of Jurisdiction as seen from Section 29 of National Green Tribunal Act is absolute or not. Only if it is found that there is total ouster of jurisdiction, the petitioner will succeed. Before this court proceeds to consider this question, it is imperative that certain other provisions of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 must also be dealt with. Section 14 speaks about the power of the tribunal to settle disputes. Section 14 reads as follows:
“Section 14- Tribunal to settle disputes.
(1) The Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment), is involved and such question arises out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I.
(2) The Tribunal shall hear the disputes arising from the questions referred to in sub-section (1) and settle such disputes and pass order thereon.
(3) No application for adjudication of dispute under this section shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a period of six months from the date on which the cause of action for such dispute first arose:
Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days.”
6. Section 15 speaks about the extent of relief, compensation and restitution which the tribunal can grant. Section 15 reads as under:
“Section 15- Relief, compensation and restitution.
(1) The Tribunal may, by an order, provide,–
(a) relief and compensation to the victims of pollution and other environmental damage arising under the enactments specified in the Schedule I (including accident occurring while handling any hazardous substance);
(b) for restitution of property damaged;
(c) for restitution of the environment for such area or areas, as the Tribunal may think fit.
(2) The relief and compensation and restitution of property and environment referred to in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) shall be in addition to the relief paid or payable under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 (6 of 1991).
(3) No application for grant of any compensation or relief or restitution of property or environment under this section shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a period of five years from the date on which the cause for such compensation or relief first arose:
Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days.
(4) The Tribunal may, having regard to the damage to public health, property and environment, divide the compensation or relief payable under separate heads specified in Schedule II so as to provide compensation or relief to the claimants and for restitution of the damaged property or environment, as it may think fit.
(5) Every claimant of the compensation or relief under this Act shall intimate to the Tribunal about the application filed to, or, as the case may be, compensation or relief received from, any other court or authority.”
7. Ouster of jurisdiction of the civil court is dealt under Section 29 of the Act. Section 29 reads as under:
“29- Bar of jurisdiction.
(1) With effect from the date of establishment of the Tribunal under this Act, no civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any appeal in respect of any matter, which the Tribunal is empowered to determine under its appellate jurisdiction.
(2) No civil court shall have jurisdiction to settle dispute or entertain any question relating to any claim for granting any relief or compensation or restitution of property damaged or environment damaged which may be adjudicated upon by the Tribunal, and no injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by or before the Tribunal in respect of the settlement of such dispute or any such claim for granting any relief or compensation or restitution of property damaged or environment damaged shall be granted by the civil court.”
8. On a conspectus reading of Sections 14, 15 and 29 of the Act, it is clear that ouster of Jurisdiction under Section 29 is not absolute. It is qualified by the conditions under Section 14. Turning to section 14 one could easily decipher that the tribunal will get Jurisdiction to entertain the dispute only if an enforcement of legal right relating to the environment arises. The incidence of the Jurisdiction of the tribunal is further qualified by the fact that the question that arises must be out of the implementation of the enactment mentioned in Schedule I. Turning to schedule I it is clear that Indian Easements Act, 1882 is not one of the enactments included under Schedule I mentioned in Section 14.
9. Yet another facet of the issue is the extent of relief the tribunal can grant. Even assuming for a moment that the entire dispute will come within the purview of section 14, even then, the power of the tribunal to grant relief is confined to Section 15 of the Act. It is beyond cavil that unlike civil court, the tribunal being a creature of statute does not have an inherent power and its power is confined to four corners of the statute.
10. Coming to relief sought for in the present suit, Ext.P6 plaint shows that the suit is primarily one for fixation of boundaries and for protection of the lateral support of the plaintiffs’ property. The right to claim lateral support is traceable to Section 7 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882. The question is whether even for a relief for fixation of boundary and for a direction for protection of the lateral support of the plaint schedule property, the plaintiff must be relegated to the National Green Tribunal?. Having regard to the provisions of the 2010 Act, this court is of the view that the jurisdiction of the civil court is ousted only in cases where the question relating to the enforcement of any of the seven enactments mentioned in the First Schedule to the said act arises.
11. That apart, it is incomprehensible to hold that the Tribunal will get jurisdiction to decide all civil disputes touching upon the proprietary rights of the party over their property. It is beyond cavil that the Tribunal cannot decide an inter se dispute arising under the Indian Easements Act, 1882.
12. Coming to the precedents cited across the bar, this court is of the view that the decisions are not authority for the proposition of law that invariably all civil disputes must be dealt with by the Tribunal. In Kitex Garments (Supra) and Ratnagiri Nagar Parishad (supra) the issue involved directly arose under the enactment mentioned in Schedule I to Section 14. Moreover, going by the Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain suits unless it is barred explicitly or impliedly.
13. Yet another aspect to be noticed is that the present original petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a declaration that Ext P 6 suit is barred. Time and again, the Supreme Court has reminded the High Courts that power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked to reject a plaint. [See P. Suresh Vs D.Kalaivani and others (2026) SCC Online SC 143]. Despite these infirmities, the petitioner insisted that this court must consider the original petition since according to him, in view of the environmental clearance and the statutory license obtained by him, a claim for fixation of boundary by the plaintiff must be dealt by the National Green Tribunal which this court finds it totally preposterous.
As an upshot of the above discussion, this court declines to exercise the Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and consequently dismisses the Original petition as bereft of merits. Interim stay granted stands vacated and it is made clear that the trial court is free to proceed with the suit. Registry to communicate this Judgment forthwith to the Munsiff’s Court, Perumbavoor. The dismissal of the original petition will not foreclose any other defense available to the petitioner to be taken before the Trial Court.
