In a dramatic turn of events, tribal communities surrounding the Sanjay Gandhi National Park (SGNP) staged a protest outside the park’s gates on Wednesday, demanding the withdrawal of a demolition notice issued by forest officials. The notice, which targets 350 structures in the park’s southern division and three in the northern sector, has ignited a heated debate over land rights, rehabilitation policies, and the legacy of encroachment in one of Mumbai’s most prized green lungs.
Background and Context
SGNP, sprawling over 1,200 hectares in the heart of Mumbai, has long been a sanctuary for biodiversity and a refuge for the city’s residents. Yet, for decades, the park has been marred by illegal settlements, many of which were established by tribal families who migrated from remote villages in search of better livelihoods. In 2023, the Maharashtra government launched a rehabilitation program, offering these families alternative housing in Chandivli and other peri‑urban areas. While the initiative was hailed as a step toward social justice, it also left a complex legacy: a number of families returned to the park, either to reclaim ancestral land or to rent out their new homes, thereby creating a patchwork of informal dwellings within the protected zone.
Earlier this year, the Bombay High Court accepted a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought to enforce the court’s earlier orders to clear encroachments from SGNP and to rehabilitate eligible residents. The court’s mandate has been interpreted by forest officials as a directive to demolish structures that violate the park’s protected status, regardless of the occupants’ history or the rehabilitation program’s outcomes.
Key Developments
During the protest, tribal leader Sunil Kawle of Dam Pada voiced the community’s frustration: “The forest division calls us ‘encroachers’ when we have lived here for generations. We are not outsiders; we are part of this ecosystem.”
State secretary Mohan Sonawane of the Rashtriya Adivasi Ekta Manch (RAEM) announced that the organization would file a petition with the National Scheduled Tribes Commission (NSTC) to seek intervention. “We are not asking for a blanket exemption,” Sonawane said. “We are demanding a fair review of the demolition notice in light of the rehabilitation program and the court’s orders.”
Director and Conservator of Forests, Anita Patil, clarified the official stance: “The demolition notice is being issued in accordance with the high‑power committee’s order. The committee identified that several families who were allotted tenements at Chandivli in Phase I have returned to the park. The structures of these families must be demolished to comply with the court’s directive.”
- Number of structures slated for demolition: 347 in the south division (Borivli) and 3 in the north division (Yeoor).
- Housing department is conducting a survey of residents on park land, with completion expected by February.
- Preliminary eligibility will be decided by two separate committees—one for each division—before the final decision is taken by the director.
- Many of the returning families have rented out their Chandivli flats, complicating the legal status of their occupancy.
The notice specifically names the individuals and families involved, adding a layer of personal accountability to the broader policy debate.
Impact Analysis
For students of environmental law, public policy, and social justice, the SGNP case offers a real‑world illustration of the tensions between conservation objectives and indigenous rights. The incident underscores the following key points:
- Legal Precedent: The Bombay High Court’s PIL and subsequent orders set a precedent for how courts can enforce environmental protection while balancing human settlement issues.
- Policy Implementation: The rehabilitation program’s partial success highlights the challenges of translating policy into practice, especially when beneficiaries return to original sites.
- Community Engagement: The protest demonstrates the importance of involving affected communities in decision‑making processes to avoid conflict and ensure sustainable outcomes.
For students, this case can serve as a case study in courses on environmental policy, indigenous rights, and urban planning. It also offers a practical example of how legal frameworks, government programs, and community actions intersect.
Expert Insights and Practical Guidance
Legal scholars and environmental NGOs have weighed in on the situation. Dr. Ravi Deshmukh, a professor of environmental law at the University of Mumbai, advises that tribal families should document their history of residence and any rehabilitation agreements. “Evidence of long‑term habitation and participation in the government’s rehabilitation scheme can strengthen their case for exemption or relocation,” he says.
NGO representative Leena Patel of the Green Rights Initiative recommends the following steps for affected families:
- Collect written affidavits from community elders confirming ancestral ties to the land.
- Secure copies of any rehabilitation agreements or allotment certificates from Chandivli.
- Engage with local legal aid clinics to prepare a robust petition to the NSTC.
- Participate in community meetings organized by RAEM to coordinate collective action.
From a policy perspective, the Maharashtra Forest Department is urged to adopt a more nuanced approach that distinguishes between illegal encroachments and rehabilitated families. “A blanket demolition policy risks alienating communities that have already been displaced,” notes Patel. “A targeted, case‑by‑case review would better align with both conservation goals and social equity.”
Looking Ahead
The next few weeks will be critical. The housing department’s survey, slated for completion in February, will determine the preliminary eligibility of residents. The two committees—one for the south and one for the north—will review the findings and recommend actions to the director. Meanwhile, the Bombay High Court is expected to schedule a hearing on the PIL’s latest developments, potentially setting a new timeline for the demolition orders.
Should the court uphold the demolition notice, tribal families may face forced relocation, raising questions about the adequacy of the rehabilitation housing and the long‑term viability of the park’s ecological integrity. Conversely, a favorable ruling could pave the way for a more inclusive conservation model that integrates human habitation with environmental stewardship.
In the broader context, the SGNP case may influence future policy frameworks for national parks across India, prompting a re‑examination of how protected areas accommodate indigenous communities while preserving biodiversity.
For students and professionals alike, staying informed about the legal proceedings, policy updates, and community responses will be essential to understanding the evolving landscape of environmental governance in India.
Reach out to us for personalized consultation based on your specific requirements.
