Bombay Environmental Action Group & another vs State of Maharashtra and others

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1998 Supreme(Bom) 699

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
M.B. Shah, C.J. S. Radhakrishnan, J.
Bombay Environmental Action Group another ..... Petitioners.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra others..... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 2754 of 1997, decided on 18-11-1998.
Advocates appeared :
I.M. Chhagla with Janak Dwarkadas, D.J. Khambata, G.S. Patel and M.S. Doctor i/by M.V. Jaykar Co., for the petitioner.
C.J. Sawant, A.G. with V.M. Parshurami, A.G.P., for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6.
V.V. Pai, for respondent No. 3.
T.C. Kaushik, for respondent No. 4.
Mahendra H. Shah with B.B. Saraf i/by. M.V. Kini, for respondent No. 7.
V.B. Naik, for respondent No. 8.
N.K. Mudnani, for respondent No. 9.
H.H. Thakkar i/by. M/s.Thakore Jariwala Ass., for respondent No. 10.
W.S. Devanani, for respondent No. 11.
A.V. Anturkar, for respondent Nos. 12, 14 and 15.
Vijay Kumar with Rajiv Wagh i/by. Ms. Reshma Ruparel, for respondent No. 13.
S.V. Doijode i/by Desai, Doijode Phatarphekar, for respondent No. 16.
R.C. Shah, for respondent No. 17.
Prafulla B. Shah, for respondent No. 18.
Ms. Kiran Bhagalia, Anand Grover, Ms. U.M. Zaveri, N.B. Raut, P.K. Samdhani, Mrs. Uma Khanna Arif Bookwala i/by P.V. Samant, for Intervener.

Headnote:Sections 47 (2) (c) and 2 (14)Land owners of 69 agricultural lands falling under Tourism Development Plan executed general power of attorney in favour of SAHARA INDIA HOUSING LTD. for development of lands-SAHARA did not hold said lands but was only a Power of Attorney holder-Section 47 (2) (c) not applicable-Letter of intent in favour of Sahara dated 7th January, 1997 quashed-neither the Ceiling Act nor Bombay Tenancy Act or M.R.T.P. Act recognise anything like developer owner alone could be a developer He/she may do the development personally or engage a contractor or an agent therefore - Developer, other than the owner was not known to the planning statute-In such a situation, the letter of intent dated 7th January, 1997 could not have been issued to Sahara at all.

JUDGMENT - M.B. SHAH, C.J.:---Heard the learned Counsel for all the parties exhaustively.

2. The petitioners in this public interest petition contend that there is large-scale illegal construction activity and deforestation in the Mahabaleshwar-Panchgani region, resulting in widespread environmental and ecological damage to these two hill stations and the area around them. It is the case of the petitioners that the provisions of the Regional Plan for Mahabaleshwar-Panchgani (1984-2001) are being violated and that construction is being carried on in breach of the provisions of the Building Bye Laws and Development Control Rules. The petitioners further contend that agricultural land is being extensively used for non-agricultural purposes such as hotels, holiday homes, luxurious private bungalows. The petitioners also contend that the forests of the Mahabaleshwar-Panchgani region are being depleted at an alarming rate and that there are continuing non-forest activities being carried on in forest areas and which are not being curbed. The petitioners have also submitted that the natural and man-made heritage of Mahabaleshwar and Panchgani need to be protected and preserved. The petitioners therefore filed this petition on 15th May 1997 seeking orders and directions for the protection of the environment of Mahabaleshwar-Panchgani.

3. Rule was issued on 23rd June 1997 and, till further orders, the State Government was directed to form a committee comprising-

(1) Mr. Arun Bhatia, Commissioner, Pune Division.

(2) Mrs. Vandana Khullar, Collector, Satara District.

(3) Mr. G.S. Pantbalekundri, Officer on Special Duty, BMRDA (formerly Deputy Secretary, Urban Development Department and former Deputy Director of Town Planning)

(4) Mr. J.G. Keskar (retired Director of Town Planning.)

(5) Mrs. Asha Javdekar, Deputy Director of Town Planning, Poona Division.

(6) Col S. Mohite (retired).

The above Committee was to find out --

(a) Illegal construction and deforestation in the hill station of Mahabaleshwar and in the Mahableshwar-Panchgani region.

(b) Purchase or use of the land in violation of the land Revenue Code or Regional Town Plan for the Mahableshwar-Panchgani region.

(d) Measures for preventing deforestation and to protect the forest from encroachment.

(e) To find out construction of ostensible farmhouses in uncultivated agricultural lands.

The Committee was directed to submit a report within eight weeks suggesting remedial measures. Respondent Nos. 2, 5 and 6 were directed to take immediate action to prevent construction of building in violation of any statutory provisions including its limit for construction at a particular height as well as user of the basement. The learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State submitted that, according to the Bye-Laws, basement cannot be used for the purpose of restaurant or as a dining hall and that it can only be used for car parking or storage of goods. In view of the aforesaid statement, respondent No. 2 was directed to issue necessary orders and directions to see that violation of the Bye-Laws or the Rules is immediately prevented.

4. The Committee submitted its report dated 17th November 1997. In this Report, the Committee identified approximately 1060 building and other violations in the Mahabaleshwar-Panchgani region, including in the gaothan areas and suggested various remedial measures. The Committee also made recommendations for the protection and regeneration of the forests in the region. The said Report also noted the pollution being caused to the Venna Lake by residential structures, including those erected by the Railway Department and, further that discharge from septic tanks is not being directed to soakage pits but is being allowed to flow into the Venna Lake which supplies drinking water to Mahabaleshwar. As regard the river, the said report noted that the waste from some Hotels w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document