National Green Tribunal holds MMB promenade on Mumbai’s Aksa Beach illegal

MUMBAI: In a significant victory for environmentalists, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has held that the promenade on the Aksa Beach in northwest Mumbai built by the Maharashtra Maritime Board (MMB) as illegal and ordered its demolition within two months.

The MMB has overstretched the CRZ clearance granted for the construction of an anti-sea erosion bund, the NGT’s western zonal bench comprising Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh, judicial member, and Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, expert member, ruled on Monday after hearing the application against the Board filed by activists B N Kumar and Zoru Bathena.

The case dates back to March 2019 when the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) had given the CRZ nod with the clear condition that no permanent, solid construction should be undertaken.

Kumar, Director of NatConnect Foundation, and Bathena, a Mumbai-based environment activist, argued that the MMB “should be held liable for damage caused to the ecosystem and is liable to pay environmental compensation on the basis of ‘Polluter Pays Principle’.”

Amending its project proposal before the MCZMA several times and obtaining the CRZ node, the MMB started building the seawall with a huge promenade and Kumar and Batena moved the NGT in June 2023 with the proof of photographs of the construction.

At various stages of considering the MMB pans, the MCZMA itself observed that the beach may be eroded due to the solid construction on the beach. Moreover, solid construction is not permissible as per the CRZ Notification, 2011.

The bench recorded the activists’ point that the entirety of the Aksa Beach falls completely within CRZ - IA and CRZ- IB areas, either in the form of sand dunes, or in the form of the tidally influenced land, falling between the low tide line and high tide line.

“It is further submitted that the sand dunes act, as one of the most effective natural barriers against storms and cyclones and the ingress & inundation of sea waters, is crucial in protecting the integrity of the coastal land and safeguarding human population and development. The dressing or altering of sand dunes is prohibited under the CRZ notification,” the applicants said.

But the MMB has essentially constructed a cement road directly in the middle of the beach by levelling and reclaiming the sandy beach, despite the fact that construction of roads are prohibited in CRZ areas under the provisions of the CRZ Notification of 2011, the NGT was told.

The MMB did not explore other options to fortify the beach and undertake anti-erosion activities, such as beach nourishment, despite the MCZMA’s instructions, the activists said.

The MCZMA’s permission for the anti-sea erosion project which was later ratified by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) clearly stipulated that no construction is allowed in intertidal or beach areas, the CRZ area. Solid construction shall be restricted to the landward side of the High Tide Line. This condition was amended by the SEIAA in July 2024 with specific instruction to the MMB to ensure that the anti-sea erosion bund shall occupy minimum intertidal area which is necessary.

The MMB, however, built the promenade beyond the sea erosion bund. “This promenade definitely appears to be quite broad, on which even a four-wheeler can easily be run,” the applicants' counsel Tushad Kakalia pointed out.

The NGT observed that “the photographs would clearly indicate that the Project Proponent (MMB) has tried to exceed its permission by making a promenade at the site of sea erosion bund, without any such proposal having been approved by MCZMA”.

The promenade is, therefore, certainly over-stretching the permission for the anti-sea erosion wall, the Bench ruled.

“We are of the view that the said anti- sea erosion bund of the project is rightly built at the site in question, however, the promenade was never part of approvals,” it said.

Remarking that the CRZ clearance need not be revoked, the NGT ordered that the promenade shall be removed within two months from the date of uploading of this judgment.