Case Note & Summary
The public interest litigations were filed to address the systematic destruction of mangroves and wetlands in Navi Mumbai. The petitioners in PIL 218/2013 highlighted that Navi Mumbai, a satellite city established to decongest Mumbai, has a 150 km creek line with dense mangrove beds and various water bodies. Despite mangroves being classified as protected forest, there was rampant burning and dumping of debris on them. Two lakes—DPS Lake behind Delhi Public School and a lake in Sector 34 behind Indian Maritime University—were particularly affected by dumping and encroachment. An amendment to PIL 218/2013 challenged a State Government notification dated 5 October 2016 under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, which modified the sanctioned development plan for pockets A and D in Karave village to facilitate a golf course. The modification removed these pockets from No Development Zone and reclassified them, with Pocket A designated as Regional Park Zone subject to MCZMA approval. PIL 58/2018 was filed specifically to challenge this notification and a subsequent boundary wall permission granted by CIDCO. The High Court had passed several interim orders, notably the order dated 29 April 2014, restraining CIDCO from destroying DPS Lake, directing removal of debris, ensuring free water flow, and appointing nodal officers to prevent dumping on mangroves. Toll-free numbers were to be publicized for citizen complaints. The interim order also mandated police assistance and barricading. The DPS Lake issue was resolved through interim measures, with the lake restored and now frequented by migratory birds. The final judgment on the challenges was reserved on 17 September 2018 and pronounced on 1 November 2018 by the division bench.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the large-scale destruction of mangroves and encroachment upon wetlands in Navi Mumbai is a matter warranting judicial intervention under public interest litigation, and whether the impugned notification dated 5th October 2016 modifying the sanctioned development plan is legal and valid.
