21-wp7132-21.doc

vai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.7132 OF 2021

A.V.F. Enterprises

...Petitioner

V/s.

State of Maharashtra & Ors.

...Respondents

Mr.Atul Damle, Senior Counsel with Mr.Sujit Lahoti, Mr.Parth Shah

and Mr.Aniket Worlikar i/b Mr.Sunit Lahoti & Associates for the

Petitioner.

Mr.A.I. Patel, Addl. Government Pleader with Mrs.A.A. Purav, AGP

for the State - Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Ms.Swati H. Sagvekar for the Respondent No.3.

CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA &

KAMAL KHATA, JJ.

DATE : 10TH OCTOBER, 2022.

P.C. :-

1.

Leave to amend is granted to the petitioner to correct the

description of the property in paragraph 11 (i), (ii) and (iii). The

amendment shall be carried out forthwith. Reverification is dispensed

with. The amendment shall also be carried out in the copies supplied

to the respondents.

2.

Rule. Mr.Patel, learned Additional Government Pleader

waives service for the respondent nos.1 and 2. Ms.Sagvekar waives

service for the respondent no.3. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

1/4

VASANT

ANANDRAO

IDHOL

Digitally signed by

VASANT

ANANDRAO IDHOL

Date: 2022.10.12

18:43:27 +0530

21-wp7132-21.doc

3.

By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, the petitioner prays for a declaration that the land bearing

Survey No.47/3B, 47/10, 48/2, 48/3A and 48/5C admeasuring 6250

sq. mtrs. situated at Chandrapada, Naigaon (East), Taluka Vasai,

District Palghar is not a wetland as described under the Wetland

(Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017.

4.

Mr.Damle, learned senior counsel for the petitioner invited

our attention to various exhibits annexed to the petition and also to

the exhibits of the affidavit in reply filed by the Tahsildar Revenue

Collector Office, Palghar and submitted that though in the

communication dated 6^th August, 2021 from the Municipal

Corporation, it was contended that the land of the petitioner was

included in the wetland according to the Government Resolution

dated 18^th December, 2013, the subsequent records produced by the

State Government, including the report dated 7^th March, 2022 would

clearly indicate that the land of the petitioner was not included as

wetland even in the brief document. He submitted that the affidavit in

reply filed by the State Government, is thus contrary to the

subsequent reports placed on record by the deponent of the affidavit

and thus the contentions raised in the affidavit in reply are contrary to

the documents on record and shall be ignored.

5.

It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the facts

2/4

21-wp7132-21.doc

of this case and the facts before this Court in Writ Petitions No.4096

of 2022 and 6893 of 2022, which are separately disposed off by an

order passed by this Court today are identical.

6.

Mr.Patel, learned Additional Government Pleader could not

dispute that the reports that were subsequently placed on record

along with the affidavit in reply filed by the State Government clearly

indicate that the land in question of the petitioner does not fall in the

category of wetland in the brief document or otherwise. In our view,

the stand taken by the State Government in the affidavit in reply is

contrary to the factual position on record and thus cannot be

accepted.

7.

In our view, the facts of this case are identical to the facts

in Writ Petitions No.4096 of 2022 and 6893 of 2022, which petitions

are allowed by a separate order passed by this Court today, the order

passed in the said two writ petitions would apply to the facts of this

case.

8.

We accordingly pass the following order :-

a).

The writ petition is allowed in terms of paragraph 11(i) and

(iii). The respondent nos.2 and 3 are directed to grant permission to

undertake the construction / redevelopment activities on the land

described in paragraph 11 (i) subje