Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Percy Jamshed Driver and Navaz Percy Driver, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court challenging two letters dated 17th October 2019 and 10th February 2021 issued by the Office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Respondent No. 3). The letters recommended that the State Government (Respondent No. 1) demolish certain structures on the petitioners' property and recover a compound amount. The petitioners contended that their property was not within a No-Development Zone under the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification 2011, and therefore the Forest Department had no jurisdiction to make such recommendations. The court heard arguments from Mr. Jamsheed Master for the petitioners, Ms. R.M. Shinde for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3, and Mr. A.M. Sethna for Respondent No. 2 (Union of India). The court examined the CRZ Notification 2011 and noted that the property was located in a CRZ-II area but was not within 200 meters of the High Tide Line or 100 meters of creeks, which are the criteria for a No-Development Zone. Consequently, the court held that the Forest Department's recommendations were without jurisdiction and contrary to the CRZ Notification. The court quashed and set aside the impugned letters and directed Respondent No. 1 not to act on them. The judgment was delivered on 4th May 2021 by a division bench comprising Justices S.J. Kathawalla and Milind N. Jadhav.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of Constitution of India - Quashing of Recommendations - Petitioners challenged recommendations of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest directing demolition and recovery of compound amount - Court held that the Forest Department had no jurisdiction over the property as it was not within a No-Development Zone under CRZ Notification 2011 - Recommendations quashed and set aside (Paras 1-10). B) Environmental Law - Coastal Regulation Zone - CRZ Notification 2011 - No-Development Zone - Petitioners' property located in CRZ-II area but not within 200 meters of High Tide Line or 100 meters of creeks - Held that the property is not in a No-Development Zone and thus Forest Department's recommendations were without jurisdiction (Paras 5-8). C) Administrative Law - Jurisdiction - Forest Department - Recommendations for Demolition - Respondent No. 3 made recommendations based on alleged violation of CRZ Notification - Court found that the property was not in a No-Development Zone and the Forest Department had no authority to make such recommendations - Recommendations quashed (Paras 9-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the recommendations made by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Respondent No. 3) in letters dated 17th October 2019 and 10th February 2021, directing the State Government to demolish structures and recover compound amount from the Petitioners, are legal and valid, and whether the Forest Department has jurisdiction over the Petitioners' property which is not within a No-Development Zone under the CRZ Notification 2011.
Final Decision
The court quashed and set aside the recommendations made in the impugned letters dated 17th October 2019 and 10th February 2021 by Respondent No. 3 and directed Respondent No. 1 not to act on the said recommendations.
Law Points
- CRZ Notification 2011
- Coastal Regulation Zone
- No-Development Zone
- Jurisdiction of Forest Department
- Article 226 of Constitution of India
- Writ of Mandamus
