Furnish details of 'real beneficiaries' of land reclaimed from sea in Mumbai: Supreme Court to Maharashtra

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday sought to know the details of "real beneficiaries" of the land reclaimed from sea for the construction of the Bandra Worli Sea Link in Mumbai after taking note of a plea seeking to restrain the authorities from carrying out commercial development.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and Joymalya Bagchi told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre and the Maharashtra government, "We want to know who are the real beneficiaries. Who are the real players behind this. We want to know." Mehta said the Centre has granted environmental clearance for the project and no wrongdoing was committed.

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the petitioner, said the Bombay High Court dismissed the plea on August 26 and pointed out that luxury houses are being built on the reclaimed land.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing in the matter, said that the subject land does not fall under the coastal regulation zone and it is not disputed by the petitioner also.

"If that land does not fall under the CRZ (Coastal Regulation Zone) area, then how can the Environment Protection Act apply in the development of the reclaimed land?" he submitted.

Sankaranarayanan said that Rohatgi was preempting his argument and he had not even advanced the detailed arguments.

The appeal filed by activist Zoru Darayus Bhathena against the high court order said on June 10, 1993, the Maharashtra government applied to the Union Ministry of Environment & Forest (MOEF) for permission to reclaim land to build the Bandra Worli Sea Link.

It said at that point in time, the CRZ notification of 1991 was in force, which did not allow for reclamation of land between the High Tide Line and Low Tide Line but a subsequent amendment in 1999, the CRZ 1991 allowed land reclamation for the construction of bridges and sea-link.

The plea said ultimately on April 26, 2000, the MOEF permitted reclamation of the additional area, however, it specifically modified the condition that no portion of the reclaimed land should be used for residential or commercial purposes.

"Thus, it may be seen that while granting permission for reclaiming a larger area of land, the MOEF specifically added a condition that no portion of the reclaimed land should be used for residential/commercial purposes. This is quite apart from, and independent from, the requirement of not violating the provisions of the CRZ Notification 1991.

"It is the contention of the Petitioner that this condition was imposed in view of the larger area of land being reclaimed, and in order to prevent the respondents from later on using the reclaimed land for other purposes," the appeal said.

The petitioner said that the authorities gave specific assurances not to use the reclaimed land for commercial purposes and to develop it for green areas. He said that on January 10, 2024, the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation (MSRDC) issued a tender for the 'Selection of developer for development of MSRDC land parcel in Bandra as Construction & Development Agency'.

"The tender covered the entire plot area of 2,32,463 Sq Mtrs (57 Acres). Upon learning of the proposed development, the petitioner filed his complaint with MCZMA drawing their attention to the fact that commercial development of reclaimed land was not permitted and called upon them to take steps to ensure that no illegal development was permitted on the said plot.

"The Respondent No.6 Adani Properties being the highest bidder was selected as the "selected bidder" by the Respondent No.1 (MSRDC) and a letter of acceptance was issued in its favour on March 16, 2024," the plea said.

Bhathena in his plea said he approached the high court seeking the issuance of directions restraining the MSRDC from planning or executing any commercial development activity on the subject land, along with other reliefs.

"The primary ground on which the writ petition was dismissed by the high court is that though the reclaimed land could not be subjected to development under the EC initially granted by the MOEF on April 26, 2000, the same were in the context of the CRZ Notification 1991, which subsequently were replaced by notifications of 2011 and 2019; and, under the 2019 notification, the subject land no longer came within the definition of CRZ area, and thus the embargo imposed on April 26, 2000 could no longer bind the respondents from developing the area as it was no longer subject to the restrictions under the CRZ notification 2019," it said.

The petitioner further said that the high court order by holding that after reclamation, the subject land is now outside the CRZ limits and may be commercially exploited without restriction, has effectively created a loophole in the CRZ regime.

"This allows any developer or public body to first reclaim sensitive tidal waters for a permitted public purpose and then, once reclassified, treat the same land as unrestricted, defeating the very purpose of the CRZ framework. Such an interpretation not only nullifies the statutory safeguards of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 but is also completely against the public trust doctrine, precautionary principle and also against the principle of sustainable development and inter-generational equity," the plea said.