Bombay HC Issues Notices To BMC, MCZMA On PIL Alleging Illegal Landfilling In Andheri’s Pahadi Goregaon Wetland

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Thursday issued notices to the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) and Konkan Wetland Committee on a public interest litigation (PIL) alleging illegal landfilling on a wetland in Village Pahadi Goregaon in Oshiwara, Andheri (W). The court, however, refused to grant an interim stay on further landfilling activities.

A bench of Chief Justice ALok Aradhe and Justice MS Karnik was hearing a PIL filed by environmental activist Zoru Bhathena challenging the BMC’s permission granted in October 2023 for the construction of a compound wall and landfilling on a 191-hectare (472-acre) plot contending that it is classified as a CRZ-1 zone and appears in the Wetland Atlas as an intertidal mudflat surrounded by mangroves.

Bhathena’s plea has alleged that 9.8 acres have already been illegally filled to obstruct tidal flow and misrepresent the high tide line in satellite imagery. During the hearing, Bathena’s advocate Tushad Kakalia sought urgent hearing and an interim stay on further illegal landfilling.

The court acknowledged the seriousness of the issue but refused stay saying that if it was found to be illegal, it would be undone. “We have taken cognisance because it is a genuine issue. Don’t doubt our powers to undo what has been done,” the bench said.

The PIL contends that no development or reclamation is permissible on CRZ-1 wetland plots under Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) and Wetland Rules. It seeks directions to halt further development, remove the landfilling, and restore the natural tidal flow in the area.

The respondents include the BMC’s Building Proposal Department, MCZMA, the Konkan Wetland Committee, and private developers Beeline Impex Pvt Ltd and Pearl CosChem Pvt Ltd, who claim ownership of portions of the land.

The petition highlights a 2023 development plan (DP) modification by the BMC, reserving part of the land for a proposed National Law University and converting other portions into a residential zone. However, the petitioner argues that the CRZ-1 status of the land remains unchanged.

In response, the private developers have alleged that the PIL is motivated and constitutes an abuse of legal process. They argue that the land does not fall within the CRZ-1 zone, except possibly at its fringes, and claim that the Wetland Rules do not apply since the area is governed by the CRZ 2011 regulations. The court has directed all respondents to file their replies within four weeks.