Bombay High Court Allows Public Interest Litigation Against Unauthorized Constructions in Green Belt and River Bed — Municipal Corporation and Pollution Control Board Directed to Enforce Environmental and Planning Laws. The court held that over 66,000 unauthorized structures, including a school in the green belt and Blue Flood Line of Pawna River, are illegal and must be demolished, with prosecution of owners.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 64
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

This public interest litigation was filed by Mrs. Jayashree Suresh Dange highlighting the alarming state of unauthorized constructions within the jurisdiction of Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (PCMC). The Pawna River, a vital water source, flows through the PCMC area. The petitioner alleged that several unauthorized constructions have been carried out in the green belt of the Pawna River, including on the river bed or banks. One such construction is the New Millenium English Medium School, built on survey no.72/part, which was confirmed by the PCMC to be in the green belt and partly within the Blue Flood Line, making it not only unauthorized but also in violation of environmental norms. The PCMC admitted in its affidavit that there are 66,324 illegal structures within the municipal area, but only 243 had been demolished and 863 FIRs lodged. The Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) had also issued notices but failed to exercise its statutory powers under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The court considered the legal issues of whether these constructions are illegal and what directions should be issued to enforce compliance. The court held that the unauthorized constructions in the green belt and river bed are illegal and violate environmental norms. It directed the PCMC to expedite demolition of all unauthorized structures and to prosecute the owners/occupiers. The MPCB was directed to exercise its statutory powers to enforce compliance with environmental laws. The court also emphasized that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to a clean environment, and the authorities must restore the environment by demolishing such structures.

Headnote

A) Environmental Law - Unauthorized Construction in Green Belt - Violation of Environmental Norms - Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - The court considered the issue of unauthorized constructions in the green belt and on the river bed of Pawna River, which is a vital water source. The court held that such constructions are not only unauthorized but also in violation of environmental norms, and directed the municipal corporation and pollution control board to take stringent action including demolition and prosecution. (Paras 2-4)

B) Municipal Law - Duty of Planning Authority - Enforcement of Building Regulations - Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - The court noted that the Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation had identified over 66,000 unauthorized structures but had only demolished 243 and lodged 863 FIRs. The court held that the corporation has been lax in enforcing its obligations and directed it to expedite demolition and prosecution of all unauthorized constructions. (Paras 2-4)

C) Constitutional Law - Right to Life - Article 21 of the Constitution of India - The court emphasized that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to a clean environment. The court held that unauthorized constructions in the green belt and river bed violate this right and directed the authorities to restore the environment by demolishing such structures. (Paras 2-4)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether unauthorized constructions in the green belt and on the river bed of Pawna River within Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation area are illegal and what directions should be issued to the authorities to enforce compliance with environmental and planning laws.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court admitted the PIL and took it up for final disposal. It directed the PCMC to expedite demolition of all unauthorized structures and to prosecute the owners/occupiers. The MPCB was directed to exercise its statutory powers under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 to enforce compliance with environmental laws. The court emphasized the right to a clean environment under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Law Points

  • Unauthorized construction in green belt and river bed is illegal
  • Environmental protection is a fundamental duty
  • Planning authorities must enforce building regulations
  • Pollution control boards must exercise statutory powers
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2013 LawText (BOM) (10) 135

Public Interest Litigation No.207 of 2010

2013-10-04

Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, M.S. Sonak

Mr. U.P. Warunjikar for Petitioner; Mr. Sameer Patil, AGP for Respondent State; Mr. S.R. Ganbavale for Respondent no.2; Mr. D.M. Gupte for Respondent no.1; Mr. Ajay Patil for Intervener

Mrs. Jayashree Suresh Dange

1. The Member Secretary, The Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, Mumbai; 2. The Commissioner, Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation, Pimpri Chinchwad, Pune; 3. Pratibha Mahila Pratisthan (Fourth Respondent)

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Public Interest Litigation concerning unauthorized constructions in the green belt and on the river bed of Pawna River within Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation area.

Remedy Sought

The petitioner sought directions to the authorities to take action against unauthorized constructions and enforce environmental and planning laws.

Filing Reason

Alarming state of unauthorized constructions brazenly made without building permissions, including a school in the green belt and Blue Flood Line of Pawna River, and laxity of authorities in enforcing compliance.

Issues

Whether unauthorized constructions in the green belt and on the river bed of Pawna River are illegal and in violation of environmental norms. What directions should be issued to the PCMC and MPCB to enforce compliance with planning and environmental laws.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that unauthorized constructions in the green belt and river bed are illegal and authorities have been lax in enforcing laws. PCMC admitted existence of 66,324 illegal structures but claimed it had issued notices, demolished 243 structures, and lodged 863 FIRs. MPCB submitted that it had issued notices but failed to exercise statutory powers.

Ratio Decidendi

Unauthorized constructions in the green belt and river bed are illegal and violate environmental norms. Planning authorities and pollution control boards have a duty to enforce compliance with laws, and failure to do so warrants court intervention to protect the environment and the right to life under Article 21.

Judgment Excerpts

The grievance which has been highlighted in these proceedings, which have been filed in the public interest, reveals an alarming state of affairs within the jurisdiction of Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation. Unauthorized constructions have been made brazenly without building permissions. The structure is not only unauthorized but is also in violation of environmental norms.

Procedural History

The PIL was filed in 2010. The court admitted it on 4 October 2013 and took it up for hearing and final disposal by consent of counsel.

Acts & Sections

  • Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974:
  • Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981:
  • Right to Information Act:
  • Constitution of India: Article 21
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Bombay at Goa Allows Appeal in Cheque Dishonour Case — Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act Not Rebutted. Trial Court Erred in Not Framing Proper Points of Determination and Ignoring Legal Presumption in Favour of Complainant.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Suspension of Sentence and Bail to Convict in Murder Case — Long Incarceration and Clean Antecedents Considered. The court suspended the sentence of the applicant convicted under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 307 read with 1...