Bombay Environmetal Action Group ...

vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

Bombay High Court

Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018
Bench: A.S. Oka

pmw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.87 OF 2006

Bombay Environmental Action Group

and another.
V/s.
The State Of Maharashtra and others.

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2741 OF 2017

Rajhans Estates And 5 Others. .

V/S
Union Of India And Ors. .

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2208 OF 2004

Maharashtra Manav Seva Sangh .

V/S
The Tahasildar and Ors. .
Digitally signed
by Sanjay
Sanjay Kashinath
Kashinath Nanoskar

-------------------
Date:
Nanoskar 2018.09.17
20:28:54 +0530

Mr. Navroz Seervai, Sr. Counsel a/w Jai Chhabria &

& Ms. Gulnar Mistry i/b. M/s M.V. Jayakar And Co. f
PIL/87/2006.
Mr. Saket Mone a/w Mr.Subit Chakrabarti a/w Mr. Vis
Ms. Neha Joshi i/b Vidhi Partners for the Petitione
& the Applicant in NMW/145/2018.
Mr. Rajshekhar V. Govilkar for the Respondent No.3
Ms. Sharmila Deshmukh for the Respondent No.5 in WP
Mr. S.S. Pakle a/w Ms. Pallavi Thakar for the Respo
Mr. Musharaf Shaikh i/b. Ms. Kiran Bagalia for the
Ms. Geeta Shastri, Addl. G. P for the Respondent -

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 1

 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

Mr. Rui Rodrigues a/w Mr. Upendra Lokegaonkar and M

for the Respondent -UOI in PIL/87/2006.
Mr. Abhishek Patil for the Applicant in CHSW/196/20
Ms. Uma Palsule-Desai, AGP for the Respondent-Sta

pil-87.06 final.doc

2012 & NMW/344/2012.

Mr. S.B. Gore, AGP for the Respondent - State in WP/2741/2017.
Ms. Pooja Tated & Ms. Raksha Thakkar i/by ALMT Legal for Third Party
No. 5.
Mr. M.S. Bharadwaj a/w Mr. A.M.Sethna for the Respondent No.5 in
WP/2208/2004.
Mr. Abhijeet Rane for the Respondent No. 15 & 16, 18 & 19.
Mr. Amol Desai a/w Mr. Avinash K. Jalisatgi for the Respondent No.11.
Mr. G.S. Hegde i/b. M.V. Kini And Co. for the Applicant in
NMWL/171/2018.
Mr. S.D. Shetty a/w Mr. Rakesh Singh i/b. M.V. Kini and Co. in
NMW/555/2017 for the Applicant.
Mr.Kunal Chheda with N.R.Bubna in NMW/145/2018 for the Applicant.
Ms. Lata Desai a/w Ms. Pallavi Divekar and Mr. Salil Dabke i/b. Divekar
and Co. in NMW/31/2018 for the Applicant.

CORAM : A.S. OKA AND RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.

DATE ON WHICH SUBMISSIONS WERE LASTLY HEARD : 02.08.2018 DATE ON WHICH

JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED : 17.09.2018 JUDGMENT : (PER A.S. OKA, J.) MANGROVES 1
This Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerns the issue of destruction of mangroves in the entire
State of Maharashtra. The word "Mangrove" is considered to be a combination of the Portuguese
word "Mangue" and the English word "grove". Mangroves are salt-tolerant plants of tropical and
subtropical intertidal regions of the world. The specific regions where these plants occur are termed
as 'mangrove ecosystem'. These are highly productive but extremely sensitive and fragile. It is said
about the mangroves that they are living life on the edge, with one foot on land and one in the sea.
They survive in a harsh environment, adapting well to the scorching heat, deep mud and saltwater
that would otherwise kill other plants. Yet they are tenacious and very useful for the environment.
The occasion for filing the main 2 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc PIL is that the importance of very
tenacious mangroves for the benefit of the mankind is ignored and mangroves are being destructed
in the State on a very large scale.

FACTUAL ASPECTS AND PRAYERS IN PIL 87 OF 2006 2 The first petitioner is a society registered
under the Societies' Registration Act, 1860. It is the case of the first petitioner that it is committed to
protection and preservation of environment. It is pointed out that the State of Maharashtra has a
coastline of 720 kilometers which is indented by numerous rivers, estuaries, creeks, small bays,
rocky shores and muddy beaches. It is pointed out in the petition that there are 18 major estuaries
along with coastline of Maharashtra harboring some of the biologically richest patches of mangroves
along the entire western coast of India. It is stated that there are 52 creeks in the State along the
coast which are covered by mangroves. The petitioners have relied upon a map annexed at Exhibit-
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 2
 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

A which is titled as "Mangroves Status 1997" which is said to be a satellite image of coast of Greater
Mumbai in the year 1997. Basically, the petition is filed for inviting attention of the Court to the
large scale destruction or denudation of mangroves. The petition seeks a declaration that the areas
covered by mangroves in the State of Maharashtra in addition to those covered by mangroves forest
should be declared as mangroves protection area.

3 In paragraph (i)4 of the petition, mangroves have been described. Paragraph (i)4 reads thus :-

"(i) What are 'mangroves'?

4. Mangroves are intertidal (growing between the high tide and low tide line)
evergreen forests growing on the soft marshy lands of a creek, estuary or a bay in the
tropical and sub tropical regions. The expression 3 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc
'mangrove' does not apply to a single species of plants, but to a complete ecosystem
which is a conglomeration of several species of flora, fauna and biotic features in an
area, and their interaction with each other. Mangroves are a peculiar habitat because
they are found on the boundary between the land and the sea. They are found almost
entirely in the tropical and sub tropical regions, that is, between 30 degrees north
and 30 degrees south latitude, and are an extension of the tropical rain forests
towards the sea. They are found largely in the estuarine regions where a river meets
the sea, the intertidal regions of shallow bays and creeks. As extensions of the tropical
rain- forests in to the sea, mangroves are functionally as important as the tropical
rain-forests. Moreover, they are additionally important for the protection of the
seashores from erosion, wave action, high-winds and cyclones. Mangroves being
intertidal forests are equal to tropical forests, however their importance is not merely
in their forest value but due to their strategic location between the land and the sea.
Mangroves are the life line of any coastal area and perform invaluable protective
functions for the environment. The importance of mangroves is set out below:"

(emphasis added) 4 The petition sets out the functions and importance of mangroves
which can be briefly summarized as under :-

A] The mangroves play important role in protecting sea shores from erosion, high
winds and cyclone; B] Mangroves are strategically located between the land and sea
and therefore, their importance is not merely in their forest value. The mangroves act
as a buffer between the land and sea and play a very important role in fighting tidal
erosion. The presence of mangroves does away with the need for expensive sea walls.
The loss of mangroves endangers the stability of the land;

4 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc C] The mangroves facilitate reclamation of land from the

sea;

D] Sometimes mangroves act as flood control by absorbing excess water from the sea;

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 3

 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

E] Similarly, mangroves protect the land from storms and hurricanes;

F] Apart from the fact that mangroves act as natural sewage water filter systems, the
same act as natural pollution coastal checks. They absorb natural waste; G] The
presence of mangroves on the fringes of the city like Mumbai which has one of the
lowest open space ratios in the world ensures that some open spaces are kept open;
H] The mangroves are breeding grounds for a number of marine organism, such as
shrimps, crabs and fish. The presence of mangroves keeps the fish relatively free from
industrial and other pollution; and I] The mangroves are also centres of biodiversity
and are the most productive ecosystems. In Maharashtra, they house panthers,
otters, jackals, wild cats, reptiles and birds of numerous varieties. It is pointed out
that Thane creek is a home to about 1.5 million birds of 206 different species.

5 It is pointed out that Maharashtra has about 18 species of mangroves out of total 55
found in India. It is pointed out that out of 5 coastal districts Mumbai, Thane (now
Thane and Palghar), Raigad, Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg, the mangroves in Thane
district have undergone maximum destruction. It is pointed out that though
comparatively there is no destruction of mangroves in District Sindhudurg, the said
district is less favourable to the growth of 5 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc mangroves
because of its geological condition. It is pointed out that in Mumbai also there has
been a large destruction of mangroves. It is pointed out that city of Mumbai has been
reclaimed from the sea by joining seven islands and it is consistently under pressure
from surrounding sea. It is pointed out as to how mangroves in Mumbai have
vanished. It is pointed out that in dumping grounds at Gorai and Deonar, water
supply to mangroves has been blocked which resulted in destruction of mangroves. It
is pointed out that rapid erosions have been noticed in the said area.

6 The prayers in prayer clause (a) of PIL are relevant which read thus:

"(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass a writ of mandamus or a writ in the
nature of mandamus, or an other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the
Respondents :

(i) to declare the areas covered by mangrove forests in the area of Greater Mumbai as
per the 1997 satellite plan annexed hereto as Exhibit 'A' as a specifically designated
"mangrove protection area" with such modifications as this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit.

(ii) to forthwith forbear from permitting any destruction or denudation of mangroves

in the aforesaid mangrove protection area, inter alia, by dumping, obstructing water
supply, cutting of mangroves or by any other method.

(iii) to forthwith remove all existing obstructions blocking water supply to mangroves
in the mangrove protection area.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 4

 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

(iv) to forthwith remove all encroachments in the mangrove protection area as per
the plan annexed as Exhibit 'A';

(v) to restore mangroves in the mangrove protection area in accordance with the
aforesaid 1997 plan by re-plantation thereof;

(vi) to take steps for the preservation of the aforesaid mangrove protection area
throughout, inter alia, the establishment of eco-tourism parks on the lines 6 of 83
pil-87.06 final.doc mentioned more particularly in Paragraph 4(ii) of this petition.

(vii) to earmark a special mangrove restoration fund for the preservation of the
mangrove protection area.

(viii) to carry out a monthly satellite study to monitor any change of land use within
the mangrove area.

(ix) to account for the application of funds received by the 1 st Respondent from the
2nd Respondent's National Committee on Mangroves & Coral Reefs for the
preservation of mangroves in Maharashtra."

7 PIL refers to various statutory provisions. It also refers to Ramsar Convention which is an
Inter-Governmental Treaty on Wetlands which requires the State to promote conservation of
wetlands habitats in the territories.

DESTRUCTION OF MANGROVES 8 In paragraph 24 of the petition, it is pointed out that there is a

systematic pattern adopted in destruction of mangroves. It is pointed out that the mangroves are
either set on fire or cut down and the areas occupied by mangroves are cleared for settlements. The
other method is by blocking water supply to mangroves by dumping debris and constructing
embankments. If water supply to mangroves is blocked, it ensures that the mangroves do not
survive. It is pointed out in the petition that though large number complaints are being made
regarding the destruction of mangroves, none of the authorities have taken any cognizance of the
complaints.

INTERIM ORDER OF 6TH OCTOBER 2005 9 On 6th October 2005, this Court passed a detailed
order. Paragraphs 7 to 13 of the said order are relevant which read thus :

"7. The Maharashtra State using Satellite Remote Sensing is directed to prepare
Phase-II of the 7 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc mapping for carrying out mangroves study
using high resolution satellite data of 65 cms. Spatial resolution/one meter spatial
resolution for detailed mapping of mangroves with a view to identify more precisely
mangrove areas. After receiving the satellite data, transfer of mangrove details on city
survey/village maps (cadestral map) would be done. According to the learned
Advocate General, this exercise is likely to take about six months. It has become
imperative to pass interim order to protect the mangroves during the interregnum.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 5

 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

We direct that this order shall not apply to all those cases which are specifically
governed by injunction or stay order passed by the Courts of law before this date.

8. The State Government is directed to designate a Senior Officer not below the rank of concerned
District Magistrate and Collector and Deputy Commissioner of Police/Superintendent of Police to
oversee the implementation of the following directions. They would entertain complaints from
citizens in respect of mangrove destruction. The name, address and contact information of such
officers shall be advertised prominently in one English newspaper and two Marathi newspapers,
apart from the official websites of the Maharashtra Government and the Forest Department.

(i) That there shall be a total freeze on the destruction and cutting of mangroves in the entire State
of Maharashtra. We take note of the fact that in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs. Union of India
and Ors. etc. [Writ Petition (C )No. 202 of 1995 and 171 of 1996], an affidavit was filed on behalf of
the State of Maharashtra by the Chief Conservator of Forests (Administration), in which on the basis
of a report of an Expert Committee, it was stated that in the Mumbai Urban Area alone, 1,534
hectares of land were, inter alia, classified as mangrove areas;

(ii) All construction and rubble/garbage dumping on the mangrove areas shall be stopped forthwith;

(iii) Regardless of ownership of the land, all construction taking place within 50 metres on all sides
of all mangroves shall be forthwith stopped;

(iv) No development permission whatsoever shall be 8 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc issued by any

authority in the State of Maharashtra in respect of any area under mangroves;

(v) The Municipal Commissioner of Greater Mumbai shall forthwith issue the necessary directions
to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Building Proposals Department not to entertain
any applications for development (as defined in the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,
1966) on or in respect of the mangrove lands, regardless of the nature of ownership;

(vi) The State Government and the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) are
directed to file monthly report on the above action plan to this Court. The first report will be
submitted within four weeks from today. The report shall specifically state, in addition to the
progress/action taken,

(a) the number of complaints received, if any,

(b) the action taken thereon, if any,

(c) the number of offenders named, and

(d) the details of prosecutions/ action launched/ taken against such offenders.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 6

 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

(vii) The State of Maharashtra is directed to file in Court and furnish to the petitioners copies of the
maps referred to in paragraph 10 of the affidavit dated 16th August, 2005, filed by Mr. Gajanand
Varade, Director, Environment Department, State of Maharashtra (Page 346 on the record), within
four weeks from today;

(viii) The areas shown as mangrove area in the satellite study report "Mapping of mangroves in the
Maharashtra State using Satellite Remote Sensing" dated August, 2005, prepared by the
Maharashtra Remote Sensing Application Centre (MRSAC) for the MCZMA which was submitted to
this Court on 29th August, 2005, form part of Phase I of the mapping by MRSAC. The MRSAC will,
in Phase-II, carry out mangroves study using high resolution for detailed mapping of mangroves
with a view to identify more precisely mangrove areas in Mumbai and Navi Mumbai. After receiving
the said satellite data, transfer of mangrove details on city survey/village maps (cadastral map) will
be carried out within a period of 6 months from today;

(ix) After the aforesaid process in clause (viii) is completed, the areas so identified which are
government owned shall be declared and notified as 9 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc "protected forests" in
accordance with law after carrying out ground survey etc. The areas so identified that are privately
owned shall be declared and notified as "forests" in accordance with law, after carrying out ground
survey etc. The said declaration/notification will be completed within a period of 8 weeks of the
completion of Phase-II mapping;

(x) The mangrove areas that are on government owned lands will be handed over to the Forest
Department within a period of 12 weeks from the declaration of the same as "protected forests";

(xi) From the list of "mangrove areas" so identified, Government owned lands will automatically be
declared/notified as "protected forests". Likewise, privately owned lands from the list of mangrove
areas so identified, the same will be declared/notified as "forests";

(xii) The Secretary, Revenue Department, shall from the said date of taking over possession of the
Government owned land by the Forest Department, update all the revenue records to ensure that
the said Government lands are shown as "protected forests" in the said revenue records within a
period of 12 weeks from the same being declared as "protected forests". In the case of lands that are
private owned, the secretary, Revenue Department, shall update all the revenue records to ensure
that the said private lands are shown as "forests" in the said revenue records within a period of 12
weeks of completion of the steps in clause (x) above;

(xiii) In respect of Government lands, the Forest Department and other authorities of the State of
Maharashtra shall take the following necessary steps of protection, conservation and regeneration of
the areas that would be declared/notified as "protected forests: in terms of clause (x) above;

(a) Removal of all obstructions that are impeding the growth of mangroves as also the
impediments which restrict the flow of sea water in the mangrove areas;

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 7

 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

(b) Wherever mangrove growth is found to be sparse and denuded (i.e. with forest
density less than 0.4 which means canopy less than 10 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc 40%)
within these identified areas, taking necessary steps for rejuvenation;

(c) On identification of the areas as forest, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai would
remove garbage and debris within these areas within a period of three months as per the
instructions of the Forest Department. These areas shall be rejuvenated with mangroves;

(d) The Forest Department is directed to take necessary action against the offenders in accordance
with law for damaging or destroying mangroves.

9. The Officers so designated in paragraph 8 above shall submit a report on the above action plan
every three months to this Court. The first of such reports shall be submitted within four weeks from
the date of declaration/notification as "protected forest". In addition to the progress/action taken,
the reports shall specifically state the action taken as regards (a) number of complaints received, if
any, (b) the action taken thereon, if any, ( c) the number of offenders named, and (d) the details of
the prosecutions/action launched/taken against such offenders.

10. The State Government shall provide the necessary staff and funds for implementing the
aforesaid directions to all concerned departments of the State.

11. The Principal Secretaries of (i) Environment, (ii) Revenue and (iii) Forest Departments,
Government of Maharashtra, shall be overall in-charge of ensuring total compliance of this order.

12. This order shall partly modify the order dated 9th June, 2004 of this Court passed in Writ
Petition No. 2208 of 2004.

13. The Chief Secretary of the State of Maharashtra is directed to send a circular to all concerned
Collectors/ Deputy Commissioners of Police/Superintendents of Police and all other concerned
officials to ensure meticulous compliance of this order."

11 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc THE STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE INTERIM DIRECTIONS

IN THE ORDER DATED 6TH OCTOBER 2005 10 For reporting compliance with the said
directions, the State Government has filed an affidavit of Shri Milind Panditrao, Divisional Forest
Officer, Mumbai Mangrove Conservation Unit. The said affidavit records that by a circular dated 21
st October 2005, the State Government issued various directions in terms of the orders dated 6 th
October 2005. Under the said circular, the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division was
appointed as the officer responsible to oversee the implementation of the aforesaid directions issued
by this Court. It is pointed out that from the year 2005, the Divisional Commissioner has submitted
147 monthly "Action Taken Reports" to this Court. It is pointed out that 695 complaints were
received by the Divisional Commissioner for various violations out of which 575 have been disposed
of and 120 are pending. It is pointed out that the Maharashtra Remote Sensing and Satellite
Application Centre (for short "MRSAC") carried out the mapping of mangroves areas of Mumbai
and Navi Mumbai. Based on this exercise, 5469 Hectares of mangroves on Government land in

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 8

 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

Mumbai were notified as forests and the said notified forest areas have been handed over to the
Forest Department. It is stated that similar exercise of mapping of mangroves in the remaining
coastal areas of Maharashtra was carried out by MRSAC. It is stated that in 7 coastal districts
(Mumbai, Mumbai Suburban, Thane, Palghar, Ratnagiri, Sindhudurg and Raigad), 15,087.57
Hectares of mangroves on Government lands have been notified as "Reserved Forests" under
Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (for short "the said Act of 1927"). Out of this area, total area
of 12,263.72 Hectares constituting approximately 81.28% of the total area declared as a Reserved
Forest 12 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc has been transferred to the Forest Department. It is stated that in
case of Thane and Mumbai Districts, the said percentage is 100% and in case of Mumbai Suburban
and Ratnagiri Districts, it is more than 99%. It is pointed out that mangroves area of 1775 Hectares
on private lands in Mumbai Suburban District has been declared as a "forest". In the said affidavit,
certain difficulties have been expressed about the implementation of the direction of this Court to
notify mangroves on private land as forests. We are dealing with the said issue in detail in the
subsequent part of the judgment. It is submitted that the mangroves, irrespective of their
ownership, receive protection under the Environment Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the said Act
of 1986") and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (for short "the said Act of 1980"). Therefore, it
was submitted that the failure to declare private lands as private forests within the meaning of the
Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1975 (for short "the Private Forest Act") has not led to
any adverse consequences.

11 Apart from the aforesaid statements made regarding the compliance with the directions issued
under the order dated 6 th October 2005, in the said affidavit, the following relevant steps taken by
the State Government have been highlighted :-

1) So far approximately 541 Hectares of degraded mangrove areas have been brought
under plantation;

2) On 5th January 2012, a dedicated unit called the "Mangrove Cell" was established
for the protection and conservation of mangroves in Maharashtra. The officer of the
rank of the Chief Conservator of Forests is heading the Mangrove Cell. From April
2017, this post has been upgraded to the level of the Additional Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests;

3) For protection of mangroves in Mumbai and adjacent urban areas, the State
Government has created Mumbai Mangrove Conservation Unit (MMCU) on 17th May
2013 which is headed by a Divisional Forest Officer who is 13 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc
assisted by several employees of the Forest Department. Six patrolling vehicles and
two patrolling boats have been provided to MMCU. It is stated that 91 personnel from
Maharashtra Security Corporation have been deployed in 3 shifts round the clock in
various vulnerable mangroves areas in Mumbai;

4) Over 3800 illegal structures constructed on mangroves land in different parts of

Mumbai have been removed and offences have been registered;

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 9

 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

5) Action has been taken against the vehicles involved in dumping of debris in
mangrove areas. It is stated that District Collectors have lodged FIRs in respect of
mangrove areas on non-forest land under the provisions of the said Act of 1986;

6) An area of 1690 Hectares having a rich cover of mangroves on the western bank of
Thane Creek has been notified as Thane Creek Flamingo Sanctuary under Section 18
of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 with effect from 6th August 2015;

7) On 20th September 2017, the State Government has initiated a new scheme of
Mangrove Conservation and Livelihood Generation in all coastal districts of
Maharashtra;

8) It is claimed that in a report published by Forest Survey of India in the year 2015,
it is stated that the mangrove cover in Maharashtra up to 2013 was having an area of
186 sq. km which jumped to 222 sq. km by 2015. District wise break-up of the growth
of mangrove cover between 2013 and 2015 has been set out in the affidavit.

12 By the said affidavit, the State Government has sought time of six months for completing the
transfer of remaining notified Reserved Forest land admeasuring about 2823.84 Hectares (of
Government land) to the Forest Department.

13 There are other affidavits placed on record from time to time. There are large number of orders
passed on Notices of Motion taken out granting permission for carrying out the work on mangroves
14 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc land. There is a detailed additional affidavit filed to the Notice of Motion
(L) No.303 of 2015 on behalf of the petitioners by Shri Debi Goenka.

SUBMISSIONS 14 The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has taken us through the
averments made in the petition, the affidavits on record as well as other material on record. He has
taken us through a chart containing the details of the extent of the implementation so far made with
the directions contained in the order dated 6 th October 2005. As regards the direction to transfer
mangroves areas to the Forest Department, it is pointed out that the City and Industrial
Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (for short "CIDCO") and the Mumbai
Metropolitan Region Development Authority (for short "MMRDA") have not transferred mangroves
land in their possession to the Forest Department. He also pointed out various aspects set out in the
action taken reports. He pointed out that due to the failure in taking immediate action in respect of
the destruction of mangroves, violators have not been identified and First Information Reports (for
short "FIRs") have been filed against unknown persons. He also pointed out from the action taken
reports that there is a frequent and rampant destruction of mangroves and dumping of garbage as
well as debris in the mangroves area. He has relied upon statements made in various affidavits on
record.

15 He further submitted that the FIRs are not taken to its logical end as the procedure under Section
19 of the said Act of 1986 is not being followed in most of the cases. He pointed out that as per the
direction issued in clause 8(vi), MCZMA has not submitted any report. He stated that copies of the

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 10

 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

maps referred in the affidavit dated 16 th 15 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc August 2005 of Shri Gajanan
Varade have not be supplied to the petitioners. He pointed out that there is no compliance with the
direction contained in clause (xiii).

16 The learned senior counsel submitted that a direction should be issued to hand over all Reserved
forests to the Forest Department within a time bound schedule. He submitted that remaining action
of notifying mangroves areas as forests should be also completed in a time bound schedule. He
submitted that there are certain mangrove areas which are vulnerable to encroachment. Such areas
must be protected by constructing a fencing/ boundary wall at a distance of 50 meters of the
mangroves on its landward side. He invited our attention to wetland maps of Maharashtra prepared
by MRSAC which are very useful for detection of destruction of mangroves. He pointed out several
violations of the directions issued by this Court on 6 th October 2005. He submitted that penal
provisions under the said Act of 1986 have been rarely invoked. He also addressed the Court on the
need for restoration and re-forestation. He submitted that there is a need to show mangroves areas
in all Development Plans and Regional Plans along with 50 buffer zones. He made various
suggestions as regards the working of the mangroves cell. He invited our attention to CRZ
notifications as well as order of the Central Government approving the Coastal Zone Management
Plan of Maharashtra (for short "CZMP"). The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also
addressed us on the contents of the affidavit of Shri Milind Panditrao.

17 He invited our attention to the Judgment and Order dated 29th July 2015 in Chamber Summons
No.172 of 2007 and other connected Notices of Motion. His basic submission is that the said
Judgment and order does not lay down any proposition of law and 16 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc
considering the peculiar facts of the case, certain plots in the layout in respect of which
environmental clearance was granted in the years 2003 to 2005 were exempted from the operation
of 50 meters buffer zone requirement. He urged that while approving CZMP, a condition was
imposed by the Central Government of keeping 50 meter buffer zone and therefore, the said
condition was in existence from the year 1996. He submitted that it is not correct to say that the
requirement of having 50 meter buffer zone was brought into picture for the first time by the interim
order dated 6th October 2005. He also pointed out as to how the condition of maintaining the buffer
zone was in existence even prior to the order dated 6th October 2005.

18 The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner also addressed us on implementation of
the directions contained in clause

(ix) regarding declaring privately owned lands having mangroves as forests in accordance with law.
He also invited our attention to the issue of implementation of the directions contained in last part
of clause (xi) as well as last part of clause (xii). Firstly, he invited our attention to the decision of the
Apex Court in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs Union Of India & Ors. 1. He submitted
that the Apex Court has given purposive interpretation to the said Act of 1980 by holding that any
forest irrespective of its ownership or its classification is entitled to protection of the provisions of
the said Act of 1980. He pointed out that the Apex Court while recording the said finding has held
that the word "forest" must be understood according to its dictionary meaning and the term "forest
land" occurring in Section 2 of the said Act of 1980 will not only include the word "forest land" in

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 11

 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

dictionary sense but also any area recorded as a forest in the (1997) 2 SCC 267 17 of 83 pil-87.06
final.doc Government record. He urged that considering the dictionary meaning of "forest" it will
cover lands with mangroves and therefore, effect will have to be given to the the directions issued by
the Apex Court in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs. Union Of India & Ors. in case of
privately owned lands having mangroves. He submitted that on such lands, non-forest activity is
completely prohibited without seeking permission of the requisite authorities.

19 Thereafter, he invited our attention to the provisions of the Private forest Act and definition of
"forest" in clause (c-i) of Section 2 of the Private Forest Act. He pointed out that the said definition
is an inclusive definition. Inviting our attention to the definition of "private forest" in clause (f) of
Section 2, he urged that even the said definition is inclusive which includes any forest which is not
the property of the State Government. He would, therefore, submit that private lands having
mangroves will be a private forest within the meaning of the Private Forest Act. He would, therefore,
submit that by virtue of sub- section (1) of section 3 of the Private Forest Act, all such lands will vest
in the State of Maharashtra irrespective of any other provisions of law.

20 He also made submissions on the basis of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules,
2017 and definition of wetlands. He urged that in addition to the interim orders issued which are
already in force, directions as contended by him may be issued apart from issuing direction
regarding setting criminal law in motion against the offenders.

21 The learned Additional Government Pleader Ms. Geeta Shastri has taken us through the affidavit
of Shri Milind Panditrao, 18 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc Divisional Forest Officer, Mumbai Mangrove
Conservation Unit and submitted that almost all interim directions have been complied with in
substance. As regards the direction sought by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner
as regards the mangroves on private forests, she submitted that recourse will have to be taken to
Section 21 of the Private Forests Act which will involve acquisition of privately owned properties
having mangroves. She pointed out that Sections 34 to 37 of the Forest Act which provide for
Control and Management of Forest Lands not being property of the Government have been repealed
for the State of Maharashtra on coming into force of the Private Forest Act. She submitted that
except the said direction, the State Government has shown willingness to implement all the other
directions. We have also heard the various learned counsel representing various respondents
including MCZMA as well as the learned counsel appearing for the parties in the connected
petitions. Though we are disposing of Writ Petition 2741 of 2017 by a separate order, we have heard
the learned counsel appearing in the said petition on certain issues especially relating to the buffer
zone. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners in Writ Petition 2741 of 2017 made
submissions in support of the order dated 29th July 2015 in Chamber Summons No. 172 of 2007.
He pointed out that the said order finally concludes the issue of 50 meter buffer zone. He pointed
out that the said order has been confirmed by the Apex Court by order dated 20 th January 2016. He
pointed out the circular issued by the State Government on the basis of the order dated 29th July
2015.

CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS 22 We have given careful consideration to the submissions.

We have perused the affidavits and compilation of documents on record.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 12

 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

19 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc THE INDIAN FOREST ACT , 1927 23 Firstly, the legal position will have
to be dealt with. Section 3 of the said Act of 1927 reads thus :-

"3. Power to reserve forests. - The State Government may constitute any forest-land
or waste-land which is the property of Government, or over which the Government
has proprietary rights, or to the whole or any part of the forest-produce of which the
Government is entitled, a reserved forest in the manner hereinafter provided."

24 The word forest has not been defined under the said Act of 1927. In the case of Laxman Ichharam
Vs. Divisional Forest2, a Division Bench of the erstwhile Nagpur High Court held that the word
forest has been used in its widest significance. The Division Bench observed in paragraph 13 :-

"13. The term 'forest' has not been defined anywhere in the Forest Act. In the absence
of such a definition the word 'forest' must be taken in its ordinary dictionary sense.
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. I, gives the following meaning to it:

'1. An extensive tract of land covered with trees and undergrowth, sometimes
intermingled with pasture ..........

2. Law. A woodland district, usually belonging to the king, set apart for hunting wild
beasts and game etc.,.........

3. A wild uncultivated waste.'"

(emphasis added)

25. The definition of a tree in sub-section (7) of Section 2 is inclusive. Therefore, a

land covered by mangroves will be a forest land within the meaning of Section 3 of
the said Act of 1927. Section 3 confers a power on the State Government to declare a
forest land which is the property of the Government as a Reserved forest. Section 4
AIR 1953 Nag 51 20 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc contemplates a notification to be issued
to constitute any land as a Reserved forest. Before issuing the notification, the
procedure prescribed by chapter II of the said Act of 1927 is required to be followed.
Section 23 provides that no right of any description shall be acquired in or over a
Reserved forest except by succession or under a grant or contract in writing made by
or on behalf of the Government or some person in whom such right was vested when
the notification under section 20 was issued. Section 20 contemplates a publication
of a notification declaring a forest to be a Reserved forest from the date fixed by the
notification. Section 26 of the said Act 1927 imposes several prohibitions in case of a
Reserved forest.

26 Sections 29 and 30 of the said Act of 1927 read thus:

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 13

 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

"29. Protected forests. - (1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official
Gazette, declare the provisions of this Chapter applicable to any forest-land or waste-
land which,, is not included in a reserved forest but which is the property of
Government, or over which the Government has proprietary rights, or to the whole or
any part of the forest produce of which the Government is entitled.

(2) The forest-land and waste-lands comprised in any such notification shall be called
a "protected forest". (3) No such notification shall be made unless the nature and
extent of the rights of Government and of private persons in or over the forest-land or
waste- land comprised therein have been inquired into and recorded at a survey or
settlement, or in such other manner as the State Government thinks sufficient. Every
such record shall be presumed to be correct until the contrary is proved:

Provided that, if, in the case of any forest- land or waste land, the State Government
thinks that such inquiry and record are necessary, but that they will occupy such
length of time as in the meantime to endanger the rights of Government, the State
Government may, pending such inquiry 21 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc and record,
declare such land to be a protected forest, but so as not to abridge or affect any
existing rights of individuals or communities.

30. Power to issue notification reserving trees, etc. - The State Government may, by
notification in the Official Gazette,

(a) declare any trees or class of trees in a protected forest to be reserved from a date
fixed by, the notification;

(b) declare that any portion of such forest specified in the notification shall be closed
for such term, rot exceeding thirty years, as the State Government thinks fit, and that
the rights of private persons, if any, over such portion shall be suspended during such
terms, provided that the remainder of such forest be sufficient, and in a locality
reasonably convenient, for the due exercise of the right suspended in the portion so
closed; or

(c) prohibit, from a date fixed as aforesaid, the quarrying of stone, or the burning of
lime or charcoal, or the collection or subjection to any manufacturing process, or
removal of, any forest- produce in any such forest, and the breaking up or clearing for
cultivation, for building, for herding cattle or for any other purpose, of any land in
any such forest."

27 The direction in clause 8(ix) of the order dated 8 th October 2005 is to declare identified
mangrove areas as "protected forest" within the meaning of section 29 of the said Act of 1927. The
said direction has been accepted by the State Government. However, in a given case, the State
Government can always declare a mangroves area as a reserved forest.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 14

 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

THE CONCEPT OF "FOREST" UNDER THE FOREST (CONSERVATION) ACT , 1980 28 The said
Act of 1980 is also very material and in particular Section 2 thereof which reads thus :-

22 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc "2. Restriction on the dereservation of forests or use of

forest land for non-forest purpose. -

Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in a
State, no State Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior
approval of the Central Government, any order directing, -

(i) that any reserved forest (within the meaning of the expression "reserved forest" in
any law for the time being in force in that State) or any portion thereof, shall cease to
be reserved;

(ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest
purpose;

(iii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be assigned by way of lease or
otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or any other
organisation not owned, managed or controlled by Government;

(iv) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be cleared of trees which have
grown naturally in that land or portion, for the purpose of using it for re-
afforestation.

[Explanation. - For the purposes of this section "non- forest purpose" means the
breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for -

(a) the cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms, oil-bearing plants, horticulture
crops or medicinal plants;

(b) any purpose other than re-afforestation, but does not include any work relating or
ancillary to conservation, development and management of forests and wild-life,
namely, the establishment of check-posts, fire lines, wireless communications and
construction of fencing, bridges and culverts, dams, waterholes, trench marks,
boundary marks, pipelines or other like purposes."

(emphasis added) 29 Section 2 thereof imposes a complete ban on the State

Government or any other authority except with the prior approval of the 23 of 83
pil-87.06 final.doc Central Government making any order for the use of any forest
land or any portion thereof for non-forest purposes. Similarly, the State Government
or any other authority cannot pass any order except with the approval of the Central
Government permitting any forest land or any portion thereof to be cleared of all
trees which have been grown naturally in that land or any portion for the purpose of

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 15

 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

using it for re-

afforestation. The concept of forest in the said Act of 1980 is of a widest amplitude.

CONCEPT OF FOREST: THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF T.N. GODAVARMAN 30 In the decision
in the case of T.N. Godavarman (supra), paragraph 4 dealt with the concept of forest under the said
Act of 1980. Paragraph 4 of the said decision reads thus :-

"4. The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was enacted with a view to check further
deforestation which ultimately results in ecological imbalance; and therefore, the
provisions made therein for the conservation of forests and for matters connected
therewith, must apply to all forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or
classification thereof. The word "forest" must be understood according to its
dictionary meaning. This description covers all statutorily recognised forests,
whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose of Section
2(i) of the Forest Conservation Act. The term "forest land", occurring in Section 2,
will not only include "forest" as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area
recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership. This is
how it has to be understood for the purpose of Section 2 of the Act. The provisions
enacted in the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 for the conservation of forests and the
matters connected therewith must apply clearly to all forests so understood
irrespective of the ownership or classification thereof. This aspect has been made
abundantly clear in the decisions of this 24 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc Court in Ambica
Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat [(1987) 1 SCC 213], Rural Litigation and
Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. [1989 Supp (1) SCC 504] and recently in the
order dated 29-11-1996 (Supreme Court Monitoring Committee v. Mussoorie
Dehradun Development Authority [WP (C) No 749 of 1995 decided on 29-11-1996] ).
The earlier decision of this Court in State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi [(1985)3 SCC
643] has, therefore, to be understood in the light of these subsequent decisions. We
consider it necessary to reiterate this settled position emerging from the decisions of
this Court to dispel the doubt, if any, in the perception of any State Government or
authority. This has become necessary also because of the stand taken on behalf of the
State of Rajasthan, even at this late stage, relating to permissions granted for mining
in such area which is clearly contrary to the decisions of this Court. It is reasonable to
assume that any State Government which has failed to appreciate the correct position
in law so far, will forthwith correct its stance and take the necessary remedial
measures without any further delay."

(emphasis added) 31 Various directions were issued under the said judgment and
order. Paragraph 5 of the said decision reads thus :-

"5. We further direct as under:-

I. General

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 16

 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

1. In view of the meaning of the word "forest" in the Act, it is obvious that prior
approval of the Central Government is required for any non-forest activity within the
area of any "forest". In accordance with Section 2 of the Act, all on-going activity
within any forest in any State throughout the country, without the prior approval of
the Central Government, must cease forthwith. It is, therefore, clear that the running
of saw mills of any kind including veneer or plywood mills, and mining of any
mineral are non-forest purposes and are, therefore, not permissible without prior
approval of the Central Government. Accordingly, any such activity is prima facie
violation of the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. Every State
Government must 25 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc promptly ensure total cessation of all
such activities forthwith.

2. In addition to the above, in the tropical wet evergreen forests of Tirap and
Changlang in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, there would be a complete ban on
felling of any kind of trees therein because of their particular significance to maintain
ecological balance needed to preserve bio- diversity. All saw mills, veneer mills and
plywood mills in Tirap and Changlang in Arunachal Pradesh and within a distance of
100 kms from its border, in Assam, should also be closed immediately. The State
Governments of Arunachal Pradesh and Assam must ensure compliance of this
direction.

3. The felling of trees in all forests is to remain suspended except in accordance with the working
plans of the State Governments, as approved by the Central Government. In the absence of any
working plan in any particular State, such as Arunachal Pradesh, where the permit system exists, the
felling under the permits can be done only by the Forest Department of the State Government or the
State Forest Corporation.

4. There shall be a complete ban on the movement of cut trees and timber from any of the seven
North-Eastern States to any other State of the country either by rail, road or waterways. The Indian
Railways and the State Governments are directed to take all measures necessary to ensure strict
compliance of this direction. This ban will not apply to the movement of certified timber required
for defence or other Government purposes. This ban will also not affect felling in any private
plantation comprising of trees planted in any area which is not a forest.

5. Each State Government should constitute within one month an Expert Committee to:

(i) Identify areas which are "forests", irrespective of whether they are so notified, recognised or
classified under any law, and irrespective of the ownership of the land of such forest;

(ii) identify areas which were earlier forests but stand degraded, denuded or cleared; and 26 of 83
pil-87.06 final.doc

(iii) identify areas covered by plantation trees belonging to the Government and those belonging to
private persons.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 17

 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

6. Each State Government should within two months, file a report regarding:

(i) the number of saw mills, veneer and plywood mills actually operating within the State, with
particulars of their real ownership;

(ii) the licensed and actual capacity of these mills for stock and sawing;

(iii) their proximity to the nearest forest;

(iv) their source of timber.

7. Each State Government should constitute within one month, an Expert Committee to assess:

(i) the sustainable capacity of the forests of the State qua saw mills and timber-based industry;

(ii) the number of existing saw mills which can safely be sustained in the State;

(iii) the optimum distance from the forest, qua that State, at which the saw mill should be located.

8. The Expert Committee so constituted should be requested to give its report within one month of
being constituted.

9. Each State Government would constitute a Committee comprising of the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests and another Senior Officer to oversee the compliance of this order and file
status reports."

(emphasis added) 32 If a reference is made to Cambridge dictionary, the meaning of forest therein is
"a large area of land covered with trees and plants usually larger than the wood or trees and plants
themselves". Considering the wide meaning given to "forest" by the Apex Court, a land covered by
mangroves irrespective of its ownership is a forest within the meaning of the said Act of 1980.
Hence, the embargo imposed by Section 2 of the said Act of 1980 and the directions issued 27 of 83
pil-87.06 final.doc by the Apex Court will apply with all the force to mangroves areas. It will apply to
mangrove areas irrespective of the fact that the lands are privately owned. That is very clear from
paragraph 5(i) above. Therefore, it is obvious that prior approval of the Central Government is
required for doing any non-forest activity within the area of mangroves. In accordance with Section
2 of the Act, all ongoing non- forest activity within any mangroves area without the prior approval of
the Central Government, must cease forthwith.

THE ENVIRONMENT (PROTECTION) ACT , 1986 33 Another important statute with which we are
concerned is the said Act of 1986. Clause (a) of sub-section (2) of the said Act of 1986 defines
"environment" which reads thus :-

"(a) "environment" includes water, air and land and the inter-

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 18

 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

relationship which exists among and between water, air and land, and human beings,
other living creatures, plants, micro-organism and property;"

Hence, the definition of environment is very wide which includes not only water, air and land but
also plants and micro- organism. Thus, it will include mangroves as well.

34 Section 3(1) of the said Act of 1986 reads thus:

"3. POWER OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT TO TAKE MEASURES TO PROTECT

AND IMPROVE ENVIRONMENT (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Central
Government, shall have the power to take all such measures as it deems necessary or
expedient for the purpose of protecting and improving the quality of the environment
and preventing controlling and abating environmental pollution."

(emphasis added) 28 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc CRZ NOTIFICATION OF 1991 35 A

notification dated 19th February 1991 was issued by the Government of India which
is known as CRZ notification of 1991 in exercise of powers under Section 3(1) and
Section 3(2)(v) of the said Act of 1986. The notification lays down what constitutes a
"Coastal Regulation Zone" (for short "CRZ"). The material part of the said CRZ
notification declaring CRZ reads thus :-

"Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause

(d) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, and all
other powers vesting in its behalf, the Central Government hereby declares the
coastal stretches of seas, bays, estuaries, creeks, rivers and backwaters which are
influenced by tidal action (in the landward side) upto 500 metres from the High Tide
Line (HTL) and the land between the Low Tide Line (LTL) and the HTL as Coastal
Regulation Zone; and imposes with effect from the date of t his Notification, the
following restrictions on the setting up and expansion of industries, operations or
processes etc. in the said Coastal Regulation zone (CRZ). For purposes of this
Notification, the High Tide Line (HTL) will be defined as the line upto which the
highest high tide reaches at spring tides."

36 Clause 3 provides that all other activities except those which are prohibited will be regulated as
provided therein. Annexure- I to the CRZ notification deals with Coastal Area Classification and
Development Regulations. CRZ-I is defined thus :-

"Category I (CRZ-I) :

(i) Areas that are ecologically sensitive and important, such as national parks marine
parks, sanctuaries, reserve forests, wildlife habitats, mangroves, corals coral reefs,
ares close to breeding and spawning grounds of fish and other marine life, areas of
outstanding natural beauty historical heritage areas, areas rich in genetic diversity,

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 19

 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

areas likely to be inundated due to rise in sea level consequent upon global warming
and such other areas as may be declared by the Central Government or the 29 of 83
pil-87.06 final.doc concerned authorities at the State/ Union Territory level from
time to time.

(ii) Area between the Low Tide Line and the High Tide Line."

(emphasis added) 37 Thus, mangroves fall in CRZ-I category. Annexure-I further lays
down that no new structure shall be permitted within 500 meters from the High Tide
Line (HTL) and no construction activities except as listed in sub-clause (xii) of clause
2 of the CRZ notification are permitted in CRZ-I area. Sub-clause (xii) of clause 2
reads thus :-

"(xii) ............... facilities for carrying treated effluents and waste water discharges into
the sea, facilities for carrying sea water for cooling purposes, oil, gas and similar
pipelines and facilities essential for activities permitted under this Notification; and"

38 The CRZ notification of 1991 was further amended by a notification dated 18th
August 1994. The relevant modification is in clause (a) which reads thus :

"(a) in paragraph 1, for the portion beginning with the words "For purposes of this
notification, the High Tide Line" and ending with the words "width of the creek, river
or back water whichever is less", the following shall be submitted, namely :-

"For the purposes of this notification, the High Tide Line means the line on the land
upto which the highest water line reaches during the spring tide and shall be
demarcated uniformly in all parts of the country by the demarcating authority so
authorised by the Central Government in consultation with the Surveyor General of
India.

NOTE :-

30 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc The distance from the High Tide Line shall apply to both
sides in the case of rivers, creeks and back waters and may be modified on a case by
case basis for reasons to be recorded while preparing the Coastal Zone Management
Plans. However, this distance shall not be less than 50 metres or the width of the
creek, river or back-water whichever is less. The distance upto which development
along rivers, creeks and back-waters is to be regulated shall be governed by the
distance upto which the tidal effect of sea is experienced in rivers, creeks or
back-waters, as the case may be, and should be clearly identified in the Coastal Zone
Management Plans."

39 Sub-clause (3)(i) of clause 3 of the CRZ notification of 1991 mandated that all
coastal States shall prepare a Coastal Zone Management Plan (for short "CZMP")

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 20

 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

identifying and classifying CRZ areas within their respective territories in accordance
with Annexures - I and II to the CRZ notification. Accordingly, CZMP for
Maharashtra was submitted to the Government of India on 22 nd November 1995. By
a letter/ order dated 27th September 1996, the Ministry of Environment and Forest
of the Government of India communicated to the Chief Secretary of the Government
of Maharashtra grant of approval to the CZMP subject to conditions incorporated
therein. Condition No.(xiii) reads thus :-

"(xiii) All mangroves with an area of 1000 square metres or more would be classified
as CRZ-I with a buffer zone of at least 50 metres."

The Mangroves were already included in CRZ-I in the CRZ notification of 19th
February 1991. By the aforesaid order dated 27 th September 1996, in case of
mangroves with an area of 1000 square metres or more, a buffer zone of at least 50
metres along the mangroves was ordered to be included in CRZ-I in addition to
mangroves.

31 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc 40 An order was issued on 19th January 2000 by the Government of
India providing that 50 meter buffer zone around mangroves of area of 1000 square meters and
above, will not be required on the landward side, provided a road abutting such mangroves was
constructed prior to February, 1991. Thus, under the 1991 notification, mangroves were included in
CRZ-I. In the CRZ notification of 1991, there was no provision for a buffer zone. The said provision
came for the first time by virtue of the order dated 27 th September 1996 which was amended by the
order dated 9 th January 2000.

CRZ NOTIFICATION OF 2011 41 The CRZ notification of 6th January 2011 was issued under
section3(1) of the said Act of 1986 which superseded the earlier CRZ notification of 1991. Relevant
part of paragraph 7 reads thus:

"7. Classification of the CRZ - For the purpose of conserving and protecting the
coastal areas and marine waters, the CRZ area shall be classified as follows, namely:-

(i) CRZ-I,-

A. The areas that are ecologically sensitive and the geomorphological features which
play a role in the maintaining the integrity of the coast,-

(a) Mangroves, in case mangrove area is more than 1000 sq mts, a buffer of 50
meters along the mangroves shall be provided;

(b) Corals and coral reefs and associated biodiversity;

(c) Sand Dunes;

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 21

 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

(d) Mudflats which are biologically active;

(e) National parks, marine parks, sanctuaries............."

(emphasis added) 32 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc Clause (xi) of paragraph 3 provides

that all construction activities in CRZ-I are prohibited activities except those specified
in paragraph 8.

Paragraph 8 lays down the norms for regulation of the activities permissible in CRZ
that:

"I. CRZ-I,-

(i) no new construction shall be permitted in CRZ-I except,-

(a) projects relating to Department of Atomic Energy;

(b) pipelines, conveying systems including transmission lines;

(c) facilities that are essential for activities permissible under CRZ-I;

(d) installation of weather radar for monitoring of cyclones movement and prediction
by Indian Meteorological Department;

(e) construction of trans harbour sea link and without affecting the tidal flow of
water, between LTL and HTL.

(f) development of green field airport already approved at only Navi Mumbai;

(ii) Areas between LTL and HTL which are not ecologically sensitive, necessary safety
measures will be incorporated while permitting the following, namely:-

(a) exploration and extraction of natural gas;

(b) construction of dispensaries, schools, public rain-shelter, community toilets,

bridges, roads, jetties, water supply, drainage, sewerage which are required for
traditional inhabitants living within the biosphere reserves after obtaining approval
from concerned CZMA.

(c) necessary safety measure shall be incorporated while permitting such

developmental activities in the area falling in the hazard zone;

(d) salt harvesting by solar evaporation of seawater;

(e) desalination plants;

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 22
 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

(f) storage of non-hazardous cargo such as edible oil,

fertilizers and food grain within notified ports;

(g) construction of trans harbour sea links, roads on stilts or pillars without affecting
the tidal flow of water."

In the Guidelines for preparation for CZMP incorporated in the said notification of
2011, it is stated thus:

33 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc "3. Buffer zone along mangrove areas of more than 1000
sq mts shall be stipulated with a different colour distinguishing from the mangrove
area.

4. The buffer zone shall also be classified as CRZ-I area."

42 In 1991 CRZ notification, it was provided that all mangrove areas will fall in
CRZ-I. By virtue of the order dated 27 th September 1996, in case of mangrove areas
of 1000 square meters or more, 50 meter buffer zone abutting it was also included in
CRZ-I. By order dated 9th January 2000, it was provided that 50 meter buffer zone
will not be required to be maintained, provided a road abutting the mangroves was
constructed prior to February 1991 ( prior to the date on which CRZ notification of
1991 was issued). Under the 2011 notification, all mangroves area fall in CRZ-I
irrespective of its area and in case the said area is 1000 square meters or more, even a
buffer zone of 50 meters along the said area shall be a part of CRZ-I. Thus, the buffer
zone of 50 meters abutting mangroves having an area of 1000 square meters or more
was also included in CRZ-I from 27 th September 1996.

43 The CRZ notifications are in the nature of orders or directions issued under the said Act of 1986.
Hence, if there is any violation of the provisions of the CRZ notifications regarding mangroves area
or its buffer zone or if there is any failure to comply with the same , it will attract the penal
provisions under Section 15 of the said Act of 1986 which is attracted in case of the failure to comply
with the provisions of orders or directions issued under the said Act of 1986. The conditions
imposed in the the letter dated 27 th September 1996 will have to be construed as an order or
direction under the said Act of 1986 as CZMP is required to be approved by the Central government
in 34 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc view of the clause 3(i) in the CRZ notification of 1991. Hence, if there
is any violation of the condition in the letter dated 27th September 1996 about the 50 meter buffer
zone, it will attract penal provision of Section 15 of the said Act of 1986."

EFFECT OF THE DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICYAND THE FUNDAMENTAL

DUTIES OF CITIZENS 44 Article 48-A in Chapter IV under the title Directive Principles of State
Policy of the Constitution of India reads thus :-

"48-A.Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 23

 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

wild life.--The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to
safeguard the forests and wild life of the country."

(emphasis added) 45 Article 48-A lays down that it is the duty of the State to make an
endeavour to protect and improve environment and to safeguard forests. As stated
earlier, environment includes plants.

Mangroves are essential part of the environment. The land covered by mangroves is be covered by
the concept of forest. Under Article 51(A)

(g) of the Constitution, it is the fundamental duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the
natural environment including forests, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living
creatures. In view of the constitutional mandate under Article 51(A)(g), it is the fundamental duty of
every citizen to protect and improve natural environment including forest which will include
mangroves. If this is the obligation of every citizen, the public bodies which are constituted by the
citizens are bound by the fundamental duties under Article 51(A). Thus, it is the duty of the State
and citizens to ensure that the mangroves are preserved and protected.

35 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE 46 In the case of Nature Lovers Movement
vs State of Kerala2a, in paragraph 2, the Apex Court observed thus:

"2. The Indian society has, for many centuries, been aware and conscious of the
necessity of protecting environment and ecology. Sages and saints of India lived in
forests. Their preachings contained in vedas, upanishads, smritis, etc. are ample
evidence of the society's respect for plants, trees, earth, sky, air, water and every form
of life. The main motto of social life is to live in harmony with nature. It was regarded
as a sacred duty of everyone to protect them. In those days, people worshipped trees,
rivers and sea which were treated as belonging to all living creatures. The children
were educated by elders of the society about the necessity of keeping the environment
clean and protecting earth, rivers, sea, forests, trees, flora, fauna and every species of
life."

(emphasis added) 47 In the case of Association for Environment Protection vs. State
of Kerala2b, the Apex Court observed thus:

"2. The ancient Roman Empire developed a legal theory known as the "doctrine of the
public trust". It was founded on the premise that certain common properties such as
air, sea, water and forests are of immense importance to the people in general and
they must be held by the Government as a trustee for the free and unimpeded use by
the general public and it would be wholly unjustified to make them a subject of
private ownership. The doctrine enjoins upon the Government to protect the
resources for the enjoyment of the general public rather than to permit their use for
private ownership or commercial exploitation to satisfy the greed of a few."

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 24

 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

(emphasis added) a (2009)5 SCC 373 b (2013)7 SCC 226 36 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc
48 In the case of M.C. Mehta Vs. Kamal Nath and Ors.3, in paragraph 34 and 35, the
Apex Court held thus :

"34. Our legal system - based on English common law -

includes the public trust doctrine as part of its jurisprudence. The State is the trustee
of all natural resources which are by nature meant for public use and enjoyment.
Public at large is the beneficiary of the sea-shore, running waters, airs, forests and
ecologically fragile lands. The State as a trustee is under a legal duty to protect the
natural resources. These resources meant for public use cannot be converted into
private ownership.

35. We are fully aware that the issues presented in this case illustrate the classic
struggle between those members of the public who would preserve our rivers, forests,
parks and open lands in their pristine purity and those charged with administrative
responsibilities who, under the pressures of the changing needs of an increasingly
complex society, find it necessary to encroach to some extent upon open lands
heretofore considered inviolate to change. The resolution of this conflict in any given
case is for the legislature and not the courts. If there is a law made by Parliament or
the State Legislatures the courts can serve as an instrument of determining legislative
intent in the exercise of its powers of judicial review under the Constitution. But in
the absence of any legislation, the executive acting under the doctrine of public trust
cannot abdicate the natural resources and convert them into private ownership, or
for commercial use. The aesthetic use and the pristine glory of the natural resources,
the environment and the ecosystems of our country cannot be permitted to be eroded
for private, commercial or any other use unless the courts find it necessary, in good
faith, for the public good and in public interest to encroach upon the said resources."

(emphasis added) (1997) 1 SCC 388 37 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc 49 In the case of

Fomento Resorts & Hotels Limited and Anr.

vs. Minguel Martins and Ors.4, in paragraphs 53 to 55 and 65, the Apex Court held thus :

"53. The public trust doctrine enjoins upon the Government to protect the resources
for the enjoyment of the general public rather than to permit their use for private
ownership or commercial purposes. This doctrine puts an implicit embargo on the
right of the State to transfer public properties to private party if such transfer affects
public interest, mandates affirmative State action for effective management of
natural resources and empowers the citizens to question ineffective management
thereof.

54. The heart of the public trust doctrine is that it imposes limits and obligations
upon government agencies and their administrators on behalf of all the people and

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 25

 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

especially future generations. For example, renewable and non-renewable resources,

associated uses, ecological values or objects in which the public has a special interest
(i.e. public lands, waters, etc.) are held subject to the duty of the State not to impair
such resources, uses or values, even if private interests are involved. The same
obligations apply to managers of forests, monuments, parks, the public domain and
other public assets. Professor Joseph L. Sax in his classic article, "The Public Trust
Doctrine in Natural Resources Law : Effective Judicial Intervention" (1970), indicates
that the public trust doctrine, of all concepts known to law, constitutes the best
practical and philosophical premise and legal tool for protecting public rights and for
protecting and managing resources, ecological values or objects held in trust.

55. The public trust doctrine is a tool for exerting long-

established public rights over short-term public rights and private gain. Today every
person exercising his or her right to use the air, water, or land and associated natural
ecosystems has the obligation to secure for the (2009) 3 SCC 571 38 of 83 pil-87.06
final.doc rest of us the right to live or otherwise use that same resource or property
for the long-term and enjoyment by future generations. To say it another way, a
landowner or lessee and a water right holder has an obligation to use such resources
in a manner as not to impair or diminish the people's rights and the people's
long-term interest in that property or resource, including down slope lands, waters
and resources.

65. We reiterate that natural resources including forests, water bodies, rivers,
seashores, etc. are held by the State as a trustee on behalf of the people and especially
the future generations. These constitute common properties and people are entitled
to uninterrupted use thereof. The State cannot transfer public trust properties to a
private party, if such a transfer interferes with the right of the public and the court
can invoke the public trust doctrine and take affirmative action for protecting the
right of people to have access to light, air and water and also for protecting rivers,
sea, tanks, trees, forests and associated natural ecosystems."

(emphasis added) 50 Public at large has a right to enjoy and have a benefit of our
forests including mangroves forest. The pristine glory of such forests must be
protected by the State. The mangroves protect our environment. Therefore, apart
from the provisions of various statutes, the doctrine of public trust which is very
much applicable in India makes it obligatory duty of the State to protect and preserve
mangroves.

PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE 51 In the case of M.C.Mehta (Badhkal and Surajkund Lakes matter)
vs Union of India5, the Apex Court held thus:

"10. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [(1987) 4 SCC 463] this Court held as under:

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 26

 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

(1997) 3 SCC 715 39 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc "The financial capacity of the tanneries
should be considered as irrelevant while requiring them to establish primary
treatment plants. Just like an industry which cannot pay minimum wages to its
workers cannot be allowed to exist, a tannery which cannot set up a primary
treatment plant cannot be permitted to continue to be in existence for the adverse
effects on the public. Life, public health and ecology have priority over
unemployment and loss of revenue problem." The "Precautionary Principle" has been
accepted as a part of the law of the land. Articles 21, 47, 48-A and 51-A(g) of the
Constitution of India give a clear mandate to the State to protect and improve the
environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. It is the duty of
every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including
forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures. The
"Precautionary Principle" makes it mandatory for the State Government to
anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environment degradation. We have no
hesitation in holding that in order to protect the two lakes from environmental
degradation it is necessary to limit the construction activity in the close vicinity of the
lakes."

(emphasis added) 52 It is not disputed by the State and it is also borne out from the
material including the action taken reports on record submitted on behalf of the State
Government that there have been instances of destruction of mangroves in the State.
The photographs produced on record clearly show that there is a large scale
destruction. The precautionary principle will apply to the destruction of mangroves
and therefore, the State is under an obligation to anticipate, attack and prevent the
reclamation of mangrove areas. It is duty bound to prevent degradation of
mangroves.

ROLE OF RAMSAR CONVENTION 53 The 8th meeting of the contracting parties (which includes
40 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc India) to the Convention on Wetlands at Ramsar in Iran in the year
1971, was held in Spain in November 2002. In the said meeting, a resolution was passed as regards
the mangroves which reads thus:

"Resolution VIII.32: Conservation, integrated management,and sustainable use of

mangrove ecosystems and their resources

1. RECOGNIZING the major importance of the wide range of ecological goods and
services provided by mangrove ecosystems, including their vital role in acting as
spawning and nursery areas for many species of economic importance, and the
economic, social and environmental importance of mangroves for, inter alia, fishing,
biodiversity, coastal protection, recreational activities, education, and coastal and
shelf water quality;

2. ALSO RECOGNIZING that the survival of a large number of local communities

and indigenous peoples depends upon the productivity and health of mangrove

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 27

 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

ecosystems;

3. RECOGNIZING FURTHER that mangrove ecosystems are important for

regulation of natural processes and maintaining biological diversity in the coastal
zones of the countries in which they occur, and that many species, notably, inter alia,
fish, molluscs, crustaceans, migratory and resident waterbirds, and aquatic
mammals, as well as threatened species, are ecologically dependent upon mangroves
and their surrounding areas;

4. AWARE that healthy mangrove ecosystems, in conjunction with their associated

coral reefs, seagrass beds, and intertidal flats, can play an important role in
mitigating climate change and sea-level rise, including through carbon sequestration
and the buffering of sea- level rise and storms, particularly in view of the current
extent of coral bleaching and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
predictions of future increase in coral bleaching, as is recognized in document COP8
DOC. 11 and Resolution VIII.3;

5. CONCERNED that, despite this widely-recognized importance of mangrove

ecosystems, the area of mangrove ecosystems continues to decrease in many
countries as the result of destruction and degradation through human activities that
use mangroves and 41 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc their surrounding areas, or that
disrupt the flow of freshwater or tidal flows to mangrove ecosystems, without
appropriate planning, management and control mechanisms;

6. AWARE of the increasing availability of knowledge about practices related to the sustainable use
of mangrove ecosystems by the ancestral communities of users and that experiences and technical
knowledge about the conservation and sustainable use of these ecosystems should receive wide
dissemination at the national and global levels;

7. TAKING NOTE of the need to strengthen at the global level the mechanisms for exchanging good
practices and technical knowledge about mangrove ecosystems and to benefit from those exchanges,
while at the same time promoting and strengthening these activities among local communities, with
the cooperation, where appropriate, of local people and national or international organizations with
knowledge or interest in the sustainable use of the biological diversity of mangrove ecosystems;

8. AWARE that Contracting Parties to this Convention have concluded through Action 6.2.3 of its
Strategic Plan 1997-2002 that mangrove ecosystems are under- represented in the List of Wetlands
of International Importance, and that guidance on the identification and designation of mangrove
ecosystems has been adopted by this meeting of the Conference of the Parties (Resolution VIII.11);

9. RECOGNIZING that mangrove ecosystems are dependent on ecological processes and influenced
by socio- economic processes that occur in river basins and the wider coastal zones in which they
occur, and that their capacity to continue to provide their values and functions depends upon
sustainable land-use management at the wider scale, as is recognized by Resolution VII.18

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 28

 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

concerning river basin management and the guidance adopted by this meeting concerning
site-based management planning (Resolution VIII.14), water allocation and management
(Resolution VIII.1), and integrated coastal zone management (Resolution VIII.4);

10. RECALLING Resolution VII.21, which specifically refers to mangrove ecosystems as an integral
part of intertidal 42 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc wetlands which have been lost and degraded due to
unsustainable activities; and

11. ALSO RECALLING the Annex to Resolution VIII.11 which refers to the principal factors causing
loss and damage to mangrove ecosystems worldwide as a result of unsustainable exploitation
practices, such as habitat destruction, hydrological changes, pollution, and unsustainable
aquaculture;

THE CONFERENCE OF THE CONTRACTING PARTIES

12. REQUESTS Contracting Parties with mangrove ecosystems in their territories to review, and as
appropriate to modify their national policies and strategies that could have harmful effects on these
ecosystems, and to implement measures to protect and restore their values and functions for human
populations, recognizing their rights, uses and traditional customs and the maintenance of
biodiversity, and to cooperate at the international level to agree regional and global strategies for
their protection;

13. ALSO REQUESTS the Contracting Parties with mangroves ecosystems in their territories to
promote their conservation, integrated management and sustainable use within the context of the
national policies and regulatory frameworks, and in accordance with environmental and strategic
assessments of the activities that could affect, directly or indirectly, the structure and function of the
mangrove ecosystems;

14. EXHORTS relevant Contracting Parties to update information on mangrove ecosystem cover and
their conservation status, as well as the forms and levels of their use, and to provide this information
to the Ramsar Bureau and the Convention's Scientific and Technical Review Panel (STRP) so as to
assist their work as called for in Resolution VIII.8 concerning status and trends in wetlands;

15. ALSO EXHORTS those Contracting Parties with mangrove ecosystems within their territories to
exchange information relating to their conservation, integrated management, and sustainable use,
especially where this involves the full participation of local communities and indigenous peoples;

16. REQUESTS the Ramsar Bureau and the STRP, as resources permit, and the Contracting Parties
to 43 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc contribute to the initiatives concerning the transfer of
environmentally sound technologies for the sustainable management of mangrove ecosystems, and
to make this available to the users;

17. ALSO REQUESTS Contracting Parties with mangrove ecosystems within their territories,
including those of their dependent territories, according to their capacities and internal regulations,

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 29

 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

to designate mangrove ecosystems that fulfill the criteria for their inclusion in the List of Wetlands
of International Importance, in order to create a coherent national and international network of
designated Ramsar sites as called for in the Strategic Framework and Vision for the List of Wetlands
of International Importance (Resolution VII.11), and in doing so to emphasize particularly those
Ramsar sites which are important for local communities and indigenous peoples in terms of their
subsistence and cultural values;

18. ALSO REQUESTS all relevant Contracting Parties to recognize the importance of mangrove
ecosystems for migratory and non-migratory birds, and to designate such areas as Ramsar sites that
qualify under Criteria 4, 5, and 6 of the Strategic Framework adopted by Resolution VII.11, in order
to contribute to the establishment of coherent flyway-scale networks of Ramsar sites, in line, as
appropriate, with the Joint Work Plan of the Ramsar Convention, Convention on Migratory Species,
and African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbird Agreement (AEWA) as endorsed by Resolution VIII.5
and other conventions or related agreements;

19. ENCOURAGES all relevant Contracting Parties to take into account in their management
planning for Ramsar sites with mangrove ecosystems, applying the New Guidelines for management
planning for Ramsar sites and other wetlands and other guidance adopted by this meeting
(Resolutions VIII.1, VIII.4, and VIII.14 ), the ecological and socio-economic factors that occur in
river basins and coastal zones to which they are related, and to ensure that their wider land-use
planning and management does not adversely affect their mangrove ecosystems, such as through
the introduction of pollutants, modification of water flows, sediment inputs, and exotic species;

44 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc

20. ALSO ENCOURAGES all relevant Contracting Parties to recognize fully the
important role mangrove ecosystems can play in mitigating climate change and
sea-level rise, especially in low-lying areas and Small Island Developing States, and to
plan their management, including required adaptation measures, so as to ensure that
the mangrove ecosystems may respond to impacts caused by climate change and
sea-level rise;

21. URGES all relevant Contracting Parties to identify the factors degrading their
mangrove ecosystems and to seek to restore such ecosystems, using the guidance on
this matter adopted by this meeting (Resolution VIII.16), so that they can deliver
their range of values and functions; and

22. REQUESTS the Ramsar Bureau to make all possible efforts to secure financial
resources and advance technical cooperation for promoting the conservation,
integrated management, and sustainable use of mangrove ecosystems and their
resources through appropriate existing partnerships and agreements with
international and regional organizations."

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 30

 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

(emphasis added) 54 The Government of India and the State Government will be
under a duty to implement the aforesaid Covenants. Therefore, it is all the more
necessary that both the State and Central Government to make all possible efforts to
preserve and protect mangroves.

ARTICLE 21 VIOLATION 55 Mangroves ecosystems play a vital role in human life. In the
subsequent part of this judgment, we have quoted a decision of the Apex Court which notes that the
mangroves forests are of great ecological importance and are also ecologically sensitive. Considering
the vital role played by the mangroves which can be seen from what is set out above, if a citizen is to
lead a meaningful life as contemplated by Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the mangroves will
have to be preserved and protected . Considering the drastic effects of destruction 45 of 83 pil-87.06
final.doc of mangroves on the environment, the destruction of mangroves and the failure of the
State to take steps for its restoration will amount to violation of fundamental rights guaranteed by
Article 21 of the Constitution.

CONTINUATION OF THE INTERIM DIRECTIONS AS THE FINAL DIRECTIONS 56 Now we turn

to the interim directions contained in the order dated 6th October 2005. We have already quoted
interim directions contained in the order dated 6th October 2005. One of the said direction is
quoted by the Apex Court in its decision in the case of Krishnadevi Malchand Kamathia and ors. vs.
Bombay Environmental Action Group5. Paragraph 6 quotes direction No.(xii) regarding notifying
mangroves areas on Government owned lands as protected forests. It refers to the notification dated
18th February 2009 issued by the Divisional Commissioner notifying the lands of the appellant
before the Apex Court as such. In paragraphs 30 to 32, the Apex Court held thus :-

"30. The CRZ Regulations define for regulating developmental activities, coastal
stretches within 500 m of the landward side of the high tide line into four categories.
Category I (CRZ-I) is defined as under: "(i) Areas that are ecologically sensitive and
important, such as, national parks/marine parks, sanctuaries, reserved forests,
wildlife habitats, mangroves, corals/coral reefs, areas close to breeding and spawning
grounds of fish and other marine life, areas of outstanding natural
beauty/historical/heritage areas, areas rich in genetic diversity, areas likely to be
inundated due to rise in sea level consequent upon global warming and other such
areas as may be declared by the Central Government or the authorities concerned at
the 2011(3) SCC 363 46 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc State/Union Territory level from
time to time."

31. The regulation of development or construction activities in CRZ-I areas is to be in

accordance with the following norms:

"CRZ-I Between LTL and HTL in areas which are not ecologically sensitive and
important, the following may be permitted: (a) exploration and extraction of natural
gas;

(b) activities as specified under proviso of sub-paras (i) and

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 31

 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

(ii) of Para 2; (c) construction of dispensaries, schools, public rain shelters,

community toilets, bridges, roads, jetties, water supply, drainage, sewerage which are
required for traditional inhabitants of the Sunderbans Biosphere Reserve Area, West
Bengal, on a case-to-case basis, by the West Bengal State Coastal Zone Management
Authority; (d) salt harvesting by solar evaporation of seawater; (e) desalination
plants; (f) storage of non- hazardous cargo such as edible oil, fertilisers and foodgrain
within notified ports; (g) construction of trans-harbour sea links."

32. From the above, it is evident that mangroves fall squarely within the ambit of
CRZ-I. The Regulations allow for salt harvesting by solar evaporation of seawater in
CRZ-I areas only where such area is not ecologically sensitive and important. In the
instant case it has been established that mangrove forests are of great ecological
importance and are also ecologically sensitive. Thus, salt harvesting by solar
evaporation of seawater cannot be permitted in an area that is home to mangrove
forests."

(emphasis added) 57 The Apex Court observed that the mangroves forests are of great
ecological importance and are also ecologically sensitive. This observation is made
after observing that mangroves falls squarely within the ambit of CRZ-I. Thus, even if
the area abutting the mangroves which were in existence when 1991 notification came
into force was already developed, the mangroves area will fall in CRZ-I and not in
CRZ-II. If there are mangroves in existence between the shoreline and the developed
area, the mangroves will fall in CRZ-I under both 47 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc the CRZ
notifications. The Apex Court, therefore, did not permit salt harvesting activity on the
mangroves areas. The Apex Court proceeded to issue several directions including the
direction to restore status-quo ante against the appellant. It can be seen from the said
decision that the Apex Court virtually approved the direction given by this Court in
clause 8(xii) regarding mangroves areas on the Government owned lands to be
declared as protected forests.

58 We must note here that none of the respondents have ventured to deny this factual statements
made in the petition about the important role played by the mangroves eco-sytems. On the contrary,
the affidavit of the State of Shri Milind Panditrao, Divisional Forest Officer shows that except for the
directions regarding the mangroves on private lands, the State Government claims to have made a
sincere effort to implement the directions issued by this Court under the order dated 6th October
2005. Whether the State has implemented all the directions issued or not is an altogether a different
issue. What is important is that the State has shown willingness to abide by almost all directions
including the direction regarding keeping buffer zone of 50 meters . Considering the applicability of
the public trust doctrine and the statutory and constitutional duty of the State, the said direction for
stopping all construction taking place within 50 meters on all sides of all mangroves will have to be
maintained as this direction will protect the mangroves. If construction activity is permitted in the
said buffer zone, it will inevitably cause damage to the mangroves. No construction/development
permission can be granted in the buffer zone of 50 meters of mangroves having an area less than
1000 square meters, unless the concerned development authorities are fully satisfied that even if

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 32

 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

development is carried out, no damage whatsoever will be 48 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc caused to the
mangroves. As pointed out earlier, in case of mangrove area of 1000 square meters or more, 50
meter buffer zone will be a part of CRZ-I and such a buffer zone will be subject to all the restrictions
provided in CRZ Regulations.

59 Therefore, there is no difficulty in continuing the directions issued in the order dated 6th October
2005 as final directions with certain modifications. As far as the directions contained in relation to
mangroves on private properties are concerned, we propose to deal with the same separately.

MANGROVES ON PRIVATE LANDS 60 Now, we turn to the issue of mangrove areas forming a part
of the private lands. For that purpose, it will be necessary to make a reference to the provisions of
the Private Forest Act. We have already held that a mangroves forest on a private land will be a
forest within the meaning of the said Act of 1980 and therefore, necessary consequences will follow.
The question is whether such areas can be transferred to the Forest Department and for that reason,
it is necessary to make a reference to the provisions of the Private Forest Act.

61 Clause (f) of Section 2 defines "Private Forest" which reads thus :

"(f) "private forest" means any forest which is not the property of Government and
includes, -

(I) any land declared before the appointed day to be a forest under section 34A of the
Forest Act;

(ii) any forest in respect of which any notification issued under sub-section (1) of
section 35 of the Forest Act, is in force immediately before the appointed day;

(iii) any land in respect of which a notice has been issued under sub-section (3) of
section 35 of the Forest Act, 49 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc but excluding an area not
exceeding two hectares in extent as the Collector may specify in this behalf;

(iv) land in respect of which a notification has been issued under section 38 of the
Forest Act;

(v) in a case where the State Government and any other person are jointly interested
in the forest, the interest of such person in such forest;

(vi) sites of dwelling houses constructed in such forest which are considered to be
necessary for the convenient enjoyment or use of the forest and lands appurtenant
thereto;"

62 Section 3 of the "Private Forest Act" is material which reads thus :-

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 33

 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

"3.(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force or in
any settlement, grant, agreement, usage, custom or any decree or order of any Court,
Tribunal or authority or any other document, with effect on and from the appointed
day, all private forests in the State shall stand acquired and vest, free from all
encumbrances, in, and shall be deemed to be, with all rights in or over the same or
appertaining thereto, the property of the State Government, and all rights, title and
interest of the owner or any person other than Government subsisting in any such
forest on the said day shall be deemed to have been extinguished.

(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to so much extent of land
comprised in a private forest as is held by an occupant or tenant and is lawfully under
cultivation on the appointed day and is not in excess of the ceiling area provided by
section 5 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, for
the time being in force or any building or structure standing thereon or appurtenant
thereto.

(3) All private forests vested in the State Government under sub-section (1) shall be
deemed to be reserved forests within the meaning of the Forest Act."

50 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc 63 Sub-section (1) of Section 3 applies to a "private

forest"

defined under clause (f) of Section 2. Thus, vesting under sub-section (1) will apply only in case of a
private forest within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2 of the Private Forest Act. Therefore, only
those lands which are covered by clause (f) of section 2 will vest in the State Government in
accordance with section 3 of the Private Forest Act. Such vesting will be automatic in view of
sub-section (1) of Section 3. Hence, such private mangroves lands which are covered by the
definition under section 2(f) will vest in the State Government on the appointed day which is 30th
August 1975.

64 The second part of the direction given in clause 8(ix) of the order dated 6th October 2005 is to
declare the mangrove areas which are privately owned as forests. Clause (xi) further provides that
from the list of mangrove areas so identified, the Government lands shall be declared/notified as
protected forests and likewise, privately owned lands from the list of mangroves areas so identified
shall be declared/notified as forests. In view of the definition of forest in clause (c-i) of Section 2, a
land covered by mangroves will be a "forest". But, no consequences as provided in section 3 will
follow under the Private Forest Act unless such a land is a "private forest" under clause (f) of Section
2.

65 Continuation of the interim direction to declare privately owned mangrove area as forest and to
transfer the same to Forest Department poses some difficulty. Under the said Act of 1927, there are
two categories of forests which could be declared by the State Government. One is the protected
forest under Section 29 to which we have already made a reference. The other is reserved forest. The
power to declare reserved forest is under Section 3 of the said Act of 1927. A 51 of 83 pil-87.06

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 34

 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

final.doc privately owned land cannot be declared as a protected forest or reserved forest over which
the State Government has no proprietary rights. Moreover, sections 34A to 37 of the said Act of 1927
stand repealed for the State of Maharashtra by virtue of section 24 of the Private Forest Act with
effect from 30th March 1975. Going back to the Private Forest Act, as observed earlier, every
mangroves area which is privately owned will not fall in the definition of private forest in clause

(f) of section 2. Another Section which is relevant in the Private Forest Act is Section 21. It confers a
power on the State Government to declare a land which is not covered by clause (f) above as a
private forest. Section 21 of the Private Forest Act reads thus :-

"21. Declaration of certain lands as private forests -

(1)Wherever it appears to the State Government that any tract of land not being the
property of Government, contains trees and shrubs, pasture lands and any other land
whatsoever, and that it should be declared in public interest and for furtherance of
the objects of this Act. to be a private forest, the State Government shall publish a
notification in the Official Gazette -

(a) declaring that it is proposed to declare such tract of land to be a private forest;
and (b) specifying, as nearly as possible, the situation and limits of such tract.

(2) On the publication of such notification, the Collector or any other officer
authorised in this behalf by the State Government shall issue a notice to the owner of
such tract of land and to all other persons having an interest in such tract of land
calling on them to show cause, within a reasonable period to be specified in such
notice, why such declaration should not be made. (3) After hearing the objections if
any, of the owner and other persons and considering any evidence that they may
produce in support of the same, the Collector, or as the case may be, the authorised
officer shall submit his report to the State Government, along with the objections,
proceeding and his opinion whether the tract of land should or should not be
declared to be a private forest.

(4) After taking into consideration the objections, 52 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc

proceeding and report and the opinion of the Collector, or as the case may be of the
authorised officer, the State Government shall decide, whether such tract of land or
any part thereof should or should not be declared to be a private forest, and such
decision shall be final.

(5) If the State Government decides to declare such tract of land or any part thereof to be a private
forest, it shall publish such decision by a notification in the Official Gazette.

(6) Upon publication of the notification under sub-section (5), the tract of land in question or any
part thereof shall be deemed to be private forest and thereupon, all the provisions of this Act shall
apply thereto, subject to the modification that the appointed day in relation thereto shall be deemed

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 35

 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

to be the date of the issue and publication of the notification in the Official Gazette under
sub-section (5) in relation thereto. (7) If the State Government decides not to declare such tract of
land or any part thereof to be a private forest, it shall communicate its decision to all persons
interested in such tract of land or any part thereof.

(8) On the publication of a notification under sub-section (1) in respect of any tract of land, it shall
not be lawful for the owner of such tract of land or any other person to do therein, except with the
previous permission in writing of the Divisional Forest Officer, any of the following things, for a
period of one year from the date of such publication, or till the date of the publication of the
notification under sub-section (5), or as the case may be, till the date of communicating the decision
under sub-section (7), whichever period expires earlier,namely :---

(a) the breaking up or cleaning of the land for cultivation;

(b) the pasturing of cattle;

(c) the filing or cleaning of the vegetation ;

(d) the girdling tapping or burning of any tree of the stripping off the bark or leaves from any tree;

(e) the lopping and pollarding of tree;

(f) the cutting, sawing, conversion and removal of trees and timber; or

(g) the quarrying of stone or the burning of lime or charccoal or the collection or removal of any
forest 53 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc produce or its subjection to any manufacturing process.

(9) If any person contravenes the provision of sub-section (8), he shall, on conviction, be punished
with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine or with both."

66 Under Section 21, a private land not covered by clause (f) of Section 2 can be declared as a private
forest. Thus, if a privately owned mangrove land is to be declared as private forest, the procedure
under Section 21 will have to be undertaken. It cannot be said that every private land containing
trees and shrimps or pasture lands should be declared as a private forest by exercising power under
Section 21. It is ultimately left to the State Government to take recourse to Section

21. Therefore, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued directing the State Government to exercise the
power under Section 21 of the Private Forest Act of declaring every privately owned mangrove area
as a private forest. However, as held earlier, whether such area is declared as a private forest under
Section 21 or not, it is a forest as held by the Apex Court in the case of T.N. Godavarman (supra) and
therefore, the same cannot be used by the owner thereof for non-forest purposes. There is one more
aspect of the matter. In case of a private forest which vests in the State Government under
sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Private Forest Act, certain amounts become payable to the owners
under Section 7 of the Private Forest Act as compensation. Therefore, in case of a land in respect of

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 36

 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

which the power under Section 21 of the Private Forest Act is exercised, compensation will be
payable by the State Government. Therefore, we are of the view that a blanket direction to declare
private mangrove areas as a private forest under the Private Forest Act cannot be issued. However,
the Government will have 54 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc to be directed to consider the cases where
Section 21 deserves to be invoked and initiate action to invoke Section 21 in accordance with law.

MONITORING COMMITTEE TO BE CONSTITUTED 67 In paragraph 8 of the order dated 6 th

October 2005, a direction was issued by the State Government to designate a senior officer not
below the rank of the District Magistrate and the Collector and Deputy Commissioner of Police to
oversee the implementation of the directions issued. As per the circular dated 21 st October 2005
issued by the State Government, the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division was entrusted with
the responsibility of the implementation of the directions of this Court.

68 In PIL No.218 of 2013, for the Navi Mumbai area in Thane District, a Committee headed by the
Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division has been constituted which has several members. The
said Committee is entrusted with the task of coordinating the activity of protecting mangroves in the
said area. The State Government by a letter dated 1st August 2018 (marked as "L 10 for
identification") addressed to the learned Additional Government Pleader has agreed to constitute
only one Committee headed by the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division for all the 7 coastal
districts of Maharashtra. We accept the statements made in the said letter. It will be appropriate if
such Committee consists of the District Collectors as suggested by the State Government, Nodal
Police Officers for each District not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police as may be
nominated by the State Government, the Nodal Officers of appropriate higher rank appointed by all
the Planning Authorities within the meaning of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning
Act,1966 (for short "MRTP Act") which are having coastal areas within its jurisdiction, Higher 55 of
83 pil-87.06 final.doc officers of the Forest Department, Officers of Mangroves Conservation Units/
Mangroves Cell, Member Secretary of MCZMA, Regional officer/s of the Maharashtra Pollution
Control Board, representatives of NGOs working in the field, the representatives of organizations of
local fisher folk communities, experts in the field of conservation etc. The State Government may
consider of including the Petitioners in this PIL and PIL no.218 of 2013 in the Committee. As stated
in the letter of the State Government, the Committee shall be responsible for coordinating the
activity of protection and conservation of mangrove areas in all the coastal districts. Naturally, the
same Committee should be given responsibility of monitoring the implementation of the directions
issued by this Court for protection and conservation of mangroves and restoration of destructed
mangroves. The function of the Committee will be to ensure that various agencies/ authorities/
officers who are vested with the statutory powers act promptly and effectively. The State
Government shall establish a secretariat of the said Committee with a central control room to
receive complaints and immediate action thereon. All the infrastructure and necessary funds should
be provided to the Committee as per the requisitions issued by the Committee from time to time.
The Divisional Commissioner will have to be authorised to constitute sub-committees at
District/Taluka level. The Committee will have to submit quarterly action taken and compliance
reports to this Court. The first report shall be submitted on 1 st December 2018. The Committee
shall be entitled to seek further directions by filing an application through the Government Pleader.
The Committee shall regularly hold meetings. It will be open to hold meetings by use of video

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 37

 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

conferencing facility. The minutes of the meeting shall be published on the web site of the
Commissioner or of the Committee.

56 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc SETTING UP GRIEVANCE REDRESS MECHANISM 69 The State

Government will have to create a Grievance Redress Mechanism for enabling the members of the
public to lodge complaints about the activity of destruction /removal /cutting of the mangroves or
causing damage to a mangroves area. An opportunity must be made available to file complaints
about any acts or omissions which may ultimately result in destruction or causing damage to the
mangroves area. The State Government shall make arrangements for receiving complaints on
dedicated website, on toll free numbers and in physical form to the officers or offices nominated by
the State Government in all coastal districts and especially in the areas where there are mangroves.
A facility shall be made available for uploading the photographs by e-mail and by whats app or
similar media by use of cell phone. The State Government must also create machinery to ensure that
the said complaints are immediately transferred to the Committee headed by the Divisional
Commissioner. The Committees will ensure that immediate action is taken of stopping the illegal
destruction or acts amounting to causing damage to the mangrove areas, if necessary with the police
help. Necessary register shall be maintained of the complaints received and action taken thereon.
The State Government must lay down methodology by which the complainant is kept posted about
the action taken on his or her complaint. On the request made by the complainant, the identity of
the complainant shall be masked and the names of the complainant shall not be disclosed to
violators of law.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN UNDER MRTP ACT 70 Now it will be necessary to refer to the provisions of
the MRTP Act. The said Act contemplates preparation of Regional and Development Plans. The
Regional Boards established under the said Act are entrusted with the responsibility of preparation
of Regional Plans 57 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc and making periodical revision of such plans. Section
14 provides for contents of a Regional Plan which reads thus:

"14. Subject to the provisions of this Act and any rules made thereunder for
regulating the form of a Regional plan and the manner in which it may be published,
any such Regional plan shall indicate the manner in which the Regional Board
propose that land in the Region should be used, whether by carrying out thereon
development or otherwise,the stages by which any such development is to be carried
out, the net-work of communications and transport, the proposals for conservation
and development of natural resources, and such other matters as are likely to have an
important influence on the development of the Region; and any such plan in
particular, may provide for all or any of the following matters, or for such matters
thereof as the State Government may direct, that is to say--

(a) allocation of land for different uses, general distribution and general locations of
land, and the extent to which the land may be used as residential, industrial,
agricultural, or as forest, or for mineral exploitation ;

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 38

 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

(b) reservation of areas for open spaces, gardens, recreation, zoological gardens,
nature reserves, animal sanctuaries, dairies and health resorts;

(c) transport and communications, such as roads, highways, railways, waterways,

canals and airports, including their development ;

(d) water supply, drainage, sewerage, sewage disposal and other public utilities,
amenities and services including electricity and gas ;

(e) reservation of sites for new towns, industrial estates and any other large scale
development or project which is required to be undertaken for proper development of
the Region or new town ;

(f) preservation, conservation and development of areas of natural scenery, forest,

wild life, natural resources, and land-scaping;

(g) preservation of objects, features, structures or places of historical, natural,

architectural or scientific interest and educational value ;

(h) areas required for military and defence purposes ;

(i) prevention of erosion, provision for afforestation, or 58 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc

reforestation, improvement and redevelopment of water front areas, rivers and lakes
;

(j) proposals for irrigation, water supply and hydro- electric works, flood control and
prevention of river pollution ;

(k) providing for the relocation of population or industry from over- populated and
industrially congested areas, and indicating the density or population or the
concentration of industry to be allowed in any areas.

.................

................."

(emphasis added) 71 Every Planning Authority under the MRTP Act is under a
mandate to make a Development Plan and to make a revision at periodical intervals.
The contents of the Development Plan are provided in section 22 which reads thus:

"22. Contents of Development plan.-- A Development plan shall generally indicate

the manner in which the use of land in the area of a Planning Authority shall be
regulated, and also indicate the manner in which the development of land therein
shall be carried out. In particular, it shall provide so far as may be necessary for all or

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 39

 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

any of the following matters, that is to say,--

(a) proposals for allocating the use of land for purposes, such as residential,
industrial, commercial, agricultural, recreational;

(b) proposals for designation of land for public purpose, such as schools, colleges and
other educational institutions, medical and public health institutions, markets, social
welfare and cultural institutions, theaters and places for public entertainment, or
public assembly, museums, art galleries, religious buildings and government and
other public buildings as may from time to time be approved by the State
Government;

(c) proposals for designation of areas for open spaces, playgrounds, stadia, zoological
gardens, green belts, nature reserves, sanctuaries and dairies;

59 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc

(d) transport and communications, such as roads, high-ways, park-ways, railways,

water-ways, canals and air ports, including their extension and development;

(e) water supply, drainage, sewerage, sewage disposal, other public utilities, amenities and services
including electricity and gas;

(f) reservation of land for community facilities and services;

(g) proposals for designation of sites for service industries, industrial estates and any other
development on an extensive scale;

(h) preservation, conservation and development of areas of natural scenery and landscape;

(I) preservation of features, structures or places of historical, natural, architectural and scientific
interest and educational value [and of heritage buildings and heritage precincts];

(j) proposals for flood control and prevention of river pollution;

(k) proposals of the Central Government, a State Government, Planning Authority or public utility
undertaking or any other authority established by law for designation of land as subject to
acquisition for public purpose or as specified in a Development plan, having regard to the provisions
of Section 14 or for development or for securing use of the land in the manner provided by or under
this Act;

(l) the filling up or reclamation of low lying, swampy or unhealthy areas or levelling up of land;

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 40

 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

(m) provisions for permission to be granted for controlling and regulating the use and development
of land within the jurisdiction of a local authority [including imposition of fees, charges and
premium, at such rate as may be fixed by the State Government or the planning Authority, from
time to time, for grant of an additional Floor Space Index or for the special permissions or for the
use of discretionary powers under the relevant Development Control Regulations, and also for
imposition of] conditions and restrictions in regard to the open space to be maintained about
buildings, the percentage of 60 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc building area for a plot, the location,
number, size, height, number of storeys and character of buildings and density of population
allowed in a specified area, the use and purposes to which buildings or specified areas of land may
or may not be appropriated, the sub-division of plots, the discontinuance of objectionable users of
land in any area in reasonable periods, parking space and loading and unloading space for any
building and the sizes of projections and advertisement signs and boardings and other matters as
may be considered necessary for carrying out the objects of this Act."

(emphasis added) 72 Thus, in a Development Plan, mangroves areas and buffer zones will have to be
specifically shown in view of clause (c) of section

22. The Regulations framed as per clause (m) must provide for ban on construction on mangroves
area and its buffer zones as laid down earlier. Mangroves areas have been already identified by using
MRSAC. In any event, in view of Section 21, preparation of land use map is a condition precedent for
preparation of a Development Plan. Section 14 deals with contents of a Regional Plan. Clause (b) of
Section 14 is similar to clause (c) of Section 22 which provides for reservation for gardens, nature
reserves etc. Therefore, The in a Regional Plan, mangroves areas and buffer zones will have to be
specifically shown. The State Government will have to issue a direction under section 154 of the
MRTP Act to all concerned Planning Authorities and Regional Boards, as the case may be, to
implement the aforesaid directions while making or amending or revising Development
Plans/Regional Plans.

RESTORATION OF MANGROVE AREAS 73 One more important issue is to restore mangroves

areas which are illegally reclaimed. The said areas have to be restored to its 61 of 83 pil-87.06
final.doc original condition. That is the legal obligation of the State. In what manner restoration
should be done should be decided by the Committee headed by the Divisional Commissioner after
consulting experts in the field. It is necessary that the Committee identifies the vulnerable
mangroves areas in the State and direct its constant surveillance either by the Police or Forest
Guards or Security Guards of the Maharashtra Security Corporation. The Committee shall ensure
that barricades are erected for entry of vehicles in such vulnerable area for preventing illegal
dumping. The Committee shall also consider of installing CCTVs along the vulnerable stretches to
keep a vigil. The Committee shall also cause to undertake satellite mapping of mangroves area at
periodical intervals of not more than six months by using resolution as suggested in paragraph
no.28 of the note submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. Any changes
seen shall be considered by the Committee and remedial measures shall be immediately taken. The
State Government shall sanction necessary funds for that purpose.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 41

 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

EFFECT OF THE ORDER DATED 29th JULY 2015 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.172 OF 2007 74
Now we must refer to the order dated 29 th July 2015. The prayer made before this Court was that
certain plots be excluded from the applicability of the direction contained in clause 8(iii) in the
order dated 6th October 2005 regarding buffer zone of 50 meters. The said order dated 29th July
2015 is confirmed by the Apex Court. The order of the Apex Court dated 2oth January 2016 shows
that it is a summary dismissal. Therefore, the issue whether the said order of this Court is a binding
precedent remains open. We find that on the plots subject matter of the said order, permissions
were granted prior to the year 1996 for making public housing. Environmental clearances were
granted prior to the order dated 6th October 2005. Before passing the 62 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc
said order, the attention of the Court was not invited to the condition

(xiii) imposed in the letter/order dated 27 th September 1996 of the Central Government by which
CZMP of the State of Maharashtra was sanctioned. The condition is that in case of mangroves with
an area of 1000 square meters and more, a buffer zone of 50 meters will form a part of CRZ-I.
Moreover, the CRZ notification of 2011 specifically provides that in case of mangroves with an area
of 1000 square meters, a buffer zone of 50 meters will form a part of CRZ-I. Interim direction in
clause 8(iii) is applicable to all mangroves area irrespective of its area. One of the reasons set out by
us for confirming the said interim direction is that if construction activity is permitted within 50
meters of mangroves area, it will cause damage to the mangroves it being an ecologically fragile
area. The area of 50 meters around mangroves area of less than 1000 square meters will not be a
part of CRZ-I though such mangrove area will be a part thereof under the both 1991 and 2011
notifications. Only in case of mangroves lands having an area of 1000 square meters or more , it's 50
meter buffer zone will also be a part of CRZ-I.

75 The said order dated 29th July 2015 deals with the projects approved prior to the year 1996. The
order ignores the provision regarding 50 meter buffer zone which was introduced on 27 th
September 1996. The said order dated 29th July 2015 was passed considering the peculiar facts in
respect of the plots subject matter of the said order. By the said order, the issue of protecting
mangroves was not finally decided. Hence, the said order cannot be held to be a binding precedent
finally deciding the issue of buffer zone and CRZ classification. There is a circular/ order dated 5 th
March 2018 issued by the Department of Environment of the State Government on the basis of the
order dated 29th July 2015. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners 63 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc in
the connected writ petition has placed on record the said circular. However, now what will prevail is
this Judgment and not the said circular which is based on the legal opinion of the Law Department.

PROCEDURE REGARDING SETTING CRIMINAL LAW IN MOTION 76 Whenever the offences

punishable under section 15 of the said Act of 1986 are committed, criminal law has to be set in
motion in accordance with section 19 of the said Act of 1986. In many cases, it is found that the
police are straight-away registering First Information Reports by ignoring the provisions of section
19 of the said Act of 1986 which reads thus :-

"19. COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCES No court shall take cognizance of any offence

under this Act except on a complaint made by--

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 42

 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

(a) the Central Government or any authority or officer authorised in this behalf by
that Government, or

(b) any person who has given notice of not less than sixty days, in the manner
prescribed, of the alleged offence and of his intention to make a complaint, to the
Central Government or the authority or officer authorised as aforesaid."

77 In the Judgment and Order dated 22nd December 2016 in PIL No.218 of 2013 in the case of Navi
Mumbai Environment Preservation Society And Anr. Vs. Ministry Of Environment, Through the
Secretary, Department of Environment and Ors., this Court considered the procedural aspects
regarding section 19 of the said act of 1986. Paragraphs 5 to 13 of the said Judgment and Order
dated 22 nd December 2016 in PIL No.218 of 2013 read thus :-

"5 As far as the officers authorised under clause (a) are concerned, a notification
bearing No.394(E) has been issued by the Government of India under which the 64 of
83 pil-87.06 final.doc District Collectors have been appointed as authority under
clause (a) of the Section 19 for their respective Districts. Chairpersons,
Member-Secretaries and Regional Officers of the State Pollution Control Board who
have been delegated powers under Section 24 of the Air (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1974 have been also nominated as authorities under clause (a) of
Section 19. The Chairman and Member-Secretary of the State Board have jurisdiction
all over the State. The jurisdiction of the Regional Officers is confined to the notified
area.

6 It is brought to our notice that in certain cases, First Information Reports have been registered for
the offences punishable under Section 15 of the said Act of 1986 by the Police. The question is
whether the Criminal Court can take cognizance of the offence on the basis of charge sheet filed on
the basis of First Information Report registered by the Police.

7 Complaint is defined under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the said Code") under
clause

(d) of Section 2 which reads thus :-

(d) "complaint" means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his
taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an
offence, but does not include a police report."

8 In the present case, only District Collectors and officers of the Maharashtra Pollution Control
Board as set out above have been authorised under clause (a) of Section 19. It will be advisable if the
information regarding commission of an offence punishable under Section 15 is immediately
communicated to the District Collector or to the Regional Officers of the Maharashtra Pollution
Control Board who are authorised officers under clause (a) of Section 19 who can set criminal law in
motion. The question is whether registration of FIR at the instance of a person who is not authorised

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 43

 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

under clause (a) of Section 19 and the investigation carried out on the basis of the FIR becomes
illegal.

65 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc 9 In this behalf, it will be necessary to make a reference to a decision of

the Apex Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Sanjay6. In the said case, the Apex Court was
dealing with the issue of taking cognizance of offences punishable under the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation Act) 1957 (for short "the said Act of 1957"). Section 22 of the said Act
of 1957 provides that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under the said Act or
Rules made thereunder except upon a complaint in writing made by a person authorised in this
behalf by the Central Government or the State Government. One of the challenges before the Apex
Court was to the decisions of Delhi High Court and Gujarat High Court dealing with the issue of
legality of the First Information Reports registered by the Police. Paragraphs 9 to 12 of the said
decision read thus :-

"9. The Delhi High Court after referring various provisions on the MMDR Act vis-à-vis the Code of
Criminal Procedure disposed of the application directing the respondent to amend the FIR, which
was registered, by converting the offence mentioned therein under Section 379/411/120B/34 of IPC
to Section 21 of the MMDR Act. The High Court in para 18 of the impugned order held as under:-

"18. In view of the aforesaid and taking into consideration the provisions contained under Section 21
(6) of the said Act I hold that:

(i) The offence under the said Act being cognizable offence, the Police could have registered an FIR
in this case;

(ii) However, so far as taking cognizance of offence under the said Act is concerned, it can be taken
by the Magistrate only on the basis of a complaint filed by an authorized officer, which may be filed
along with the police report;

(iii) Since the offence of mining of sand without permission is punishable under Section 21 of the
said Act, the question of said offence being an offence under Section 379 IPC does not arise because
the said Act makes illegal mining as an offence only when there is no permit/licence for such
extraction (2014) 9 SCC 772 66 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc and a complaint in this regard is filed by an
authorized officer.

10. On the other hand the Gujarat High Court formulated the following question for consideration:-
(1) Whether Section 22 of the Act would debar even lodging an FIR before the police with respect to
the offences punishable under the said Act and Rules made thereunder?

(2) In Case such FIR's are not debarred and the police are permitted to investigate, can the
concerned Magistrate take cognizance of the offences on a police report?

(3) What would be the effect on the offences punishable under the Penal Code in view of the
provisions contained in the Act?

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 44

 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

11. The Gujarat High Court came to the following conclusion:-

(I) The offence under the said Act being cognizable offence, the Police could have registered an FIR
in this case;

(ii) However, so far as taking cognizance of offence under the said Act is concerned, it can be taken
by the Magistrate only on the basis of a complaint filed by an authorized officer, which may be filed
along with the Police report;

(iii) Since the offence of mining of sand without permission is punishable under Section 21 of the
said Act, the question of said offence being an offence under Section 379 IPC does not arise because
the said Act makes illegal mining as an offence only when there is no permit/licence for such
extraction and a complaint in this regard is filed by an authorized officer.

12. The Gujarat High Court, therefore, held that:-

1. Section 22 of the Act does not prohibit registering an FIR by the police on
information being given with respect to offences punishable under the said Act or the
Rules made thereunder.

2. It is however, not open for the Magistrate to 67 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc take

cognizance of the offence punishable under the Act or the Rules made there under on
a mere charge-sheet filed by the police. It would, however, be open for the officer
authorized by the state or the Central Government in this behalf to file a complaint in
writing before the Magistrate relying upon the investigating carried out by the police
and the complaint may also include the papers of the police investigation.

3. With respect to offences punishable under the Penal Code, no such bar as indicated
in para (2) would apply."

(emphasis added) 10 We must note here that the offence under Sub-Section (1) of
Section 15 attracts imprisonment for a term which may extend to 5 years. Therefore,
as per Part II of the First Schedule to the said Code, the offence will be cognizable and
therefore, Police can register the same under Sub-Section (1) of Section 154 of the
said Code.

Perusal of the decision of the Apex Court in the aforesaid case shows that the Apex Court has not
disturbed the view taken by the Delhi High Court and Gujarat High Court which we have quoted
above. Therefore, if FIR is registered by the Police for the offences punishable under Section of
Section 15 of the said Act of 1986, the registration of offence and investigation carried out by the
Police is not per se vitiated. A complaint can be made/filed by authorised officer under clause (a) of
Section 19 before the concerned Court. While filing complaint, the authorised officer can always rely
upon the material collected by the Police during the investigation. The Complaint can include the
material collected by the Police during the investigation carried out on the basis of the FIR.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 45

 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

11 Another issue is about of those cases where on the basis of the First Information Reports
registered for the offences punishable under Sub-Section (1) of Section 15 of the said Act of 1986 and
charge sheet filed by the Police, Criminal Courts have taken cognizance. The question is whether
trial in such cases is vitiated. This issue is dealt with by the Apex Court in the case of H.N.

68 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc Rishbud and Inder Singh Vs. State of Delhi 7. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the
said decision read thus :-

"9. The question then requires to be considered whether and to what extent the trial which follows
such investigation is vitiated. Now, trial follows cognizance and cognizance is preceded by
investigation. This is undoubtedly the basic scheme of the Code in respect of cognizable cases. But it
does not necessarily follow that an invalid investigation nullifies the cognizance or trial based
thereon. Here we are not concerned with the effect of the breach of a mandatory provision
regulating the competence or procedure of the Court as regards cognizance or trial. It is only with
reference to such a breach that the question as to whether it constitutes an illegality vitiating the
proceedings or a mere irregularity arises. A defect or illegality in investigation, however serious, has
no direct bearing on the competence or the procedure relating to cognizance or trial. No doubt a
police report which results from an investigation is provided in Section 190 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure as the material on which cognizance is taken. But it cannot be maintained that a valid and
legal police report is the foundation of the jurisdiction of the Court to take cognizance. Section 190
of the Code of Criminal Procedure is one out of a group of sections under the beading "Conditions
requisite for initiation of proceedings. The language of this section is in marked contrast with that of
the other sections of the group under the same heading, i.e. Sections 193 and 195 to 199. These latter
sections regulate the competence of the Court and bar its jurisdiction in certain cases excepting in
compliance therewith. But Section 190 does not. While no doubt, in one sense, clauses (a),

(b) and (c) of Section 190(1) are conditions requisite for taking of cognizance, it is not possible to say
that cognizance on an invalid police report is prohibited and is therefore a nullity. Such an invalid
report may still fall either under clause (a) AIR 1955 SC 196 69 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc or (b) of
Section 190(1), (whether it is the one or the other we need not pause to consider) and in any case
cognizance so taken is only in the nature of error in a proceeding antecedent to the trial. To such a
situation Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is in the following terms is attracted:

"Subject to the provisions hereinbefore contained, no finding, sentence or order passed by a Court of
competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered on appeal or revision on account of any error,
omission or irregularity in the complaint, summons, warrant, charge, proclamation, order,
judgment or other proceedings before or during trial or in any enquiry or other proceedings under
this Code, unless such error, omission or irregularity, has in fact occasioned a failure of justice".

If, therefore, cognizance is in fact taken, on a police report vitiated by the breach of a mandatory
provision relating to investigation, there can be no doubt that the result of the trial which follows it
cannot be set aside unless the illegality in the investigation can be shown to have brought about a
miscarriage of justice. That an illegality committed in the course of investigation does not affect the
competence and the jurisdiction of the Court for trial is well settled as appears from the cases in

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 46

 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

Prabhu V. Emperor and Lumbhardar Zutshi V. King. These no doubt relate to the illegality of arrest
in the course of investigation while we are concerned in the present cases with the illegality with
reference to the machinery for the collection of the evidence. This distinction may have a bearing on
the question of prejudice or miscarriage of justice, but both the cases clearly show that invalidity of
the investigation has no relation to the competence of the Court. We are, therefore, clearly, also, of
the opinion that where the cognizance of the case has in fact been taken and the case has proceeded
to termination, the invalidity of the precedent investigation does not vitiate the result, unless
miscarriage of justice has been 70 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc caused thereby.

10. It does not follow, however, that the invalidity of the investigation is to be completely ignored by
the Court during trial. When the breach of such a mandatory provision is brought to the knowledge
of the Court at a sufficiently early stage, the Court, while not declining cognizance, will have to take
the necessary steps to get the illegality cured and the defect rectified, by ordering such
reinvestigation as the circumstances of an individual case may call for. Such a course is not
altogether outside the contemplation of the scheme of the Code as appears from Section 202 under
which a Magistrate taking cognizance on a complaint can order investigation by the police. Nor can
it be said that the adoption of such a course is outside the scope of the inherent powers of the Special
Judge, who for purposes of procedure at the trial is virtually in the position of a Magistrate trying a
warrant case. When the attention of the Court is called to such an illegality at a very early stage it
would not be fair to the accused not to obviate the prejudice that may have been caused thereby, by
appropriate orders, at that stage but to leave him to the ultimate remedy of waiting till the
conclusion of the trial and of discharging the somewhat difficult burden under Section 537 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure of making out that such an error has in fact occasioned a failure of
justice. It is relevant in this context to observe that even if the trial had proceeded to conclusion and
the accused had to make out that there was in fact a failure of justice as the result of such an error,
explanation to Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure indicates that the fact of the objection
having been raised at an early stage of the proceeding is a pertinent factor. To ignore the breach in
such a situation when brought to the notice of the Court would be virtually to make a dead letter of
the peremptory provision which has been enacted on grounds of public policy for the benefit of such
an accused. It is true that the peremptory provision itself allows an officer of a lower rank to make
the 71 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc investigation if permitted by the Magistrate. But this is not any
indication by the Legislature that an investigation by an officer of a lower rank without such
permission cannot be said to cause prejudice. When a Magistrate is approached for granting such
permission he is expected to satisfy himself that there are good and sufficient reasons for
authorising an officer of a lower rank to conduct the investigation. The granting of such permission
is not to be treated by a Magistrate as a mere matter of routine but it is an exercise of his judicial
discretion having regard to the policy underlying it. In our opinion, therefore, when such a breach is
brought to the notice of the Court at an early stage of the trial the Court have to consider the nature
and extent of the violation and pass appropriate orders for such reinvestigation as may be called for,
wholly or partly, and by such officer as it considers appropriate with reference to the requirements
of Section 5-A of the Act. It is in the light of the above considerations that the validity or otherwise of
the objection as to the violation of Section 5(4) of the Act has to be decided and the course to be
adopted in these proceedings, determined."

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 47

 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

12 Thus, in cases where charge sheets have been filed and the Courts have taken cognizance on the
basis of Charge sheets, the proceedings of criminal case or trial will not per se stand vitiated. The
same will stand vitiated only if there is a miscarriage of justice.

78 Thereafter, this Court proceeded to hold that registration of offences by the police under
sub-section (1) of section 15 of the said Act of 1986 investigation carried out thereon is not per se
illegal. While filing complaints, officers authorised under clause (a) of section 19 can always rely
upon the material collected during the investigation and the material forming charge sheet prepared
by the police. We concur with the view taken above. We must note here that the Committee headed
72 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc by the Divisional Commissioner will have to ensure that recourse is
promptly taken to section 19 for setting the criminal law in motion by the officers empowered under
clause (a) of Section 19.

79 There is a need to hold regular awareness programs in schools and colleges and various
educational institutions for making the students aware about the drastic effects of destruction of
mangroves. The State shall take steps in that behalf for making the students aware about the
dangers which may be caused to the ecology and environment in case the mangroves forests are
destructed or damaged. To reiterate, the failure of the State and its agencies/ instrumentalities to
maintain and conserve the mangrove areas will amount to violation of rights of the citizens under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India apart from other consequences. Though we are not issuing a
writ, we hope and trust that the State Government will take such initiatives.

80 The State Government has not placed any material on record to show that compliance with
clause 8(vii) of order dated 6 th October 2005 has been made. We propose to direct the State
Government to do so within two months by providing copies to the petitioners.

81 The mangroves lands held by the public authorities like CIDCO, MMRDA are also governed by
sub-clauses (ix) to (xi) of clause 8 of the aforesaid order. Therefore, they must transfer the lands in
their possession to the Forest Department.

82 Considering the prayers in the Writ Petition No. 2208 of 2004, no separate order is required to
be passed therein. We are passing a separate order in Writ Petition No. 2741 of 2017.

73 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc SUMMARY OF IMPORTANT FINDINGS 83 The summary of some of

the important conclusions read thus:

(i) A land regardless of its ownership on which there are mangroves, is a forest within
the meaning of the said Act of 1980 and therefore, the provisions of Section 2 of the
said Act of 1980 and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of T.N.
Godavarman will squarely apply to such land;

(ii) A mangroves area on a Government land is liable to be declared as a protected

forest or a reserved forest, as the case may be, within the meaning of the said Act of
1927;

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 48

 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

(iii) All mangroves lands irrespective of its area will fall in CRZ-I as per both the CRZ
notifications of 1991 and 2011;

(iv) In 1991 CRZ notification, it is provided that all mangrove areas will fall in CRZ-I.
By virtue of the order dated 27th September 1996, in case of mangrove areas of 1000
square meters or more, 50 meter buffer zone abutting it was also included in CRZ-I.
By order dated 9th January 2000, it was provided that 50 meter buffer zone will not
be required, provided a road abutting the mangroves was constructed prior to
February 1991. Under the 2011 notification, all mangroves lands fall in CRZ-I and in
case the area of such land is 1000 square meters or more, even a buffer zone of 50
meters along the said area shall be a part of 74 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc CRZ-I. But,
the buffer zone of 50 meters which is required to be kept free of constructions in
respect of the mangroves area of less than 1000 square meters will not be a part of
CRZ-I.;

(v) if there is any violation of the CRZ notifications regarding mangroves area, it will attract penal
provision under Section 15 of the said Act of 1986 which is attracted in case of the failure to comply
with the provisions of orders or directions issued under the said Act of 1986. The conditions
imposed in the the letter dated 27th September 1996 as amended will have to be construed as an
order or direction under the said Act of 1986 as CZMP is required to be approved by the Central
government in view of the clause 3(i) in the CRZ notification of 1991 which is an order or direction
under the said Act of 1986. Hence, if there is any violation of the condition in the letter dated 27 th
September 1996 in respect of the 50 meter buffer zone, it will attract penal provision of Section 15 of
the said Act of 1986.

(vi) The destruction of mangroves offends the fundamental rights of the citizens under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India.

(vii) In view of the provisions of Articles 21, 47, 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution of India, it is a
mandatory duty of the State and its agencies and instrumentalities to protect and preserve
mangroves;

(viii) In view of applicability of public trust doctrine, the State is duty bound to protect and preserve
mangroves. The mangroves cannot be permitted to be destructed by the 75 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc
State for private, commercial or any other use unless the Court finds it necessary for the public good
or public interest;

(ix) The Precautionary Principle makes it mandatory for the State and its agencies and
instrumentality to anticipate and attack causes and consequences of degradation of mangroves.

84 As far as Writ Petition No.2741 of 2017 is concerned, we are deciding the same by a separate
order. Writ Petition No.2208 of 2014 will stand disposed of in terms of this Judgment.

85 For the reasons recorded above, we dispose of the PIL by passing the following order :-

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 49

 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

ORDER (A) The following directions issued in the interim order dated 6th October
2005 shall continue to operate as final directions in following terms;

(I) That there shall be a total freeze on the destruction and cutting of mangroves in
the entire State of Maharashtra;

(II) Dumping of rubble/garbage/solid waste on the mangrove areas shall be stopped

forthwith; (III) Regardless of ownership of the land having mangroves and the area
of the land, all constructions taking place within 50 metres on all sides of all
mangroves areas shall be forthwith stopped. The area of 50 meters shall be kept free
of construction except construction of a compound wall/fencing for its protection.;

76 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc (IV) No development permission whatsoever shall be

issued by any authority in the State of Maharashtra in respect of any area under
mangroves. All authorities including the Planning Authorities shall note that all
mangroves lands irrespective of its area will fall in CRZ-I as per both the CRZ
notifications of 1991 and 2011. In case of all mangrove areas of 1000 sq. meter or
more, a buffer zone of 50 meters along the mangroves will also be a part of CRZ-I
area. Though buffer zone of 50 meters in case of mangroves area of less than 1000
meters will not be a part of CRZ-I, it will be subject to above restrictions specified in
clause III above; (V) The State of Maharashtra is directed to file in this Court and
furnish to the petitioner copies of the maps referred to in paragraph 10 of the
affidavit dated 16th August, 2005, filed by Mr.Gajanand Varade, Director,
Environment Department, State of Maharashtra (Page 346 on the record), within
four weeks from today. The soft or hard copies of the maps be supplied to the
Petitioner within the same period;

(B) The following direction issued in terms of clause 8(viii) of the order dated 6th October 1005 has
been substantially complied with :

"The areas shown as mangrove area in the satellite study report "Mapping of mangroves in the
Maharashtra State using Satellite Remote Sensing" dated August, 2005, prepared by the
Maharashtra 77 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc Remote Sensing Application Centre (MRSAC) for the
MCZMA which was submitted to this Court on 29th August, 2005, form part of Phase I of the
mapping by MRSAC. The MRSAC will, in Phase-II, carry out mangroves study using high resolution
for detailed mapping of mangroves with a view to identify more precisely mangrove areas in
Mumbai and Navi Mumbai. After receiving the said satellite data, transfer of mangrove details on
city survey/village maps (cadastral map) will be carried out within a period of 6 months from
today";

(C) The directions in sub-clauses(ix) to (xiii) of clause 8 of the order dated 6th October 2005 shall
continue to operate as final directions in respect of mangrove areas only on the government lands
and the lands held by Planning Authorities like CIDCO, MMRDA etc. In respect of the lands
admeasuring 2823.8493 Hectares as stated in the affidavit dated 14th February 2018 of Shri Milind

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 50

 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

Panditrao, the direction regarding transfer of the lands to the Forest Department and consequential
directions regarding making revenue entries shall be complied with within a period of three months
from the date on which this Judgment and Order is uploaded. The State Government shall identify
the mangroves lands which were vested in it by virtue of section 3(1) of the Private Forest Act and
shall take appropriate steps in respect of such lands for transferring such lands to Forest
Department within a period of 18 months from today. It will be also open for the State Government
to take recourse to section 21 of the Private Forest Act in appropriate cases;

78 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc (D) We direct the State Government to constitute a Committee headed
by the Divisional Commissioner, as agreed by the State Government. The Committee and
sub-committees shall be formed in accordance with the observations made in paragraph 68 above.
The committee shall be responsible for the preservation and conservation of mangroves, for
restoration of reclaimed mangroves areas set out in paragraph 73 above and for implementation of
the directions in this Judgment. The Committee shall be constituted within a period of one month
from today. The sub-committees as observed in paragraph 68 shall be constituted within two
months from today. The Committee shall hold regular meetings and the minutes of the meeting
shall be made available on public domain as observed in paragraph 68 above. As directed under the
order dated 6th October 2005, the Principal Secretaries of (1) Environment, (2) Revenue and (3)
Forest Department of the Government of Maharashtra shall be overall in-charge for ensuring total
compliance with the directions issued under this Judgment and Order. They will monitor the
working of the Committee headed by the Divisional Commissioner;

(E) The State Government shall create a Grievance Redress Mechanism for enabling the members of
the public to lodge complaints about the activity of destruction /removal of the mangroves. An
opportunity must be made available to file complaints about any acts or omission which may
ultimately result in destruction or causing damage to the mangroves area. The State 79 of 83
pil-87.06 final.doc Government shall make arrangements for receiving complaints on dedicated
website, on toll free numbers and in physical form to the officers or offices nominated by the State
Government in all districts and especially in the areas where there are mangroves. A facility shall be
made available for uploading the photographs of the affected area by e-mail and by whats app or
similar media by use of cell phone. The State Government must also create a machinery to ensure
that the said complaints are immediately transferred to the Committee headed by the Divisional
Commissioner. The Committees will ensure that immediate action is taken of stopping the illegal
destruction or acts amounting to causing damage to the mangrove areas, if necessary with the police
help. Necessary register shall be maintained of the complaints received and action taken thereon.
The State Government must lay down the procedure by which complainant is kept posted about the
action taken on his or her complaint. On the request made by the complainant, the identity of the
complainant shall be masked and the names of the complainant shall not be disclosed to the
violators;

(F) The Grievance Redress Mechanism shall be set up within a period of three months from today.
Adequate publicity shall be given to the availability of the Grievance Redress Mechanism in leading
newspapers as well as local newspapers. Information about availability of the Grievance Redress
Mechanism shall be prominently displayed in the offices of District Collectors, Sub-

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 51

 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

80 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc Divisional Officers, Tahasildar in the Coastal Districts as well as in the
offices of the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board and the Maharashtra Maritime Board in the
coastal districts. The information shall be displayed prominently in the offices of the Municipal
Corporations/Municipal Councils provided any coastal area forms part of the limits of such
Municipal Corporation or such Municipal Council. Publicity shall be given at regular intervals of at
least six months to the details of the grievance redress mechanism in leading newspapers having
good circulation in the coastal areas;

(G) We direct that it is the obligation of the State to replant destructed mangroves and to restore
mangroves areas which are illegally reclaimed. The said areas shall be restored to its original
condition. In what manner restoration shall be done must be decided by the Committee headed by
the Divisional Commissioner after consulting experts in the field. The Committee shall identify the
vulnerable mangroves areas in the State and direct its constant surveillance by the Police/Forest
Guards/Security Guards of the Maharashtra Security Corporation. The Committee shall ensure that
barricades are erected for preventing the entry of vehicles in such vulnerable area. The Committee
shall also consider of installing CCTVs along the vulnerable stretches to keep a vigil. The Committee
shall also cause to undertake satellite mapping of mangroves area in the state at periodical intervals
of not more than six months by using resolution as suggested in paragraph no.28 of the note 81 of
83 pil-87.06 final.doc submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. Any
changes seen shall be considered by the Committee and remedial measures shall be taken. The State
Government shall sanction necessary amount for that purpose;

(H) The State Government shall ensure that criminal law is set in motion against all those who
commit offences punishable under section 15 of the said Act of 1986 as observed in the Judgment.
The Committee shall monitor implementation of this direction;

(I) The State Government shall issue a direction under section 154 of the MRTP Act to all concerned
Planning Authorities and Regional Boards under the MRTP Act to to show mangroves areas and 50
meter buffer zone around it while making or revising Development Plans/Regional Plans. Such a
direction shall be issued within a period of three months from today;

(J) Quarterly Compliance reports shall be filed by the Committee reporting compliance with the
aforesaid directions. The first of such reports shall be filed on or before 1st December 2018;

(K) Rule issued in PIL No.87 of 2006 is disposed of on above terms;

(L) For reporting compliance, PIL shall be listed on 1 st December 2018. It will be appropriate if PIL
is placed for 82 of 83 pil-87.06 final.doc monitoring the compliance before this Bench or a Bench of
which one of us is a party. The Prothonotary and Senior Master shall seek appropriate directions in
this behalf from Hon'ble the Chief Justice;

(M) Writ Petition No. 2208 of 2004 stands disposed of. No separate directions are required to be
issued in this Petition. Writ Petition No. 2741 of 2004 stands disposed of by a separate order passed
today;

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 52

 Bombay Environmetal Action Group ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2018

(RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, J) (A.S. OKA, J)

83 of 83

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/69425638/ 53