AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This petition for review of Judgment dated 15.1.2016, in Application No.55/2014(WZ) is preferred by M/s Sunstream City Pvt. Ltd, arrayed as Respondent No.9in the Original Proceedings. They seek review of the order referred to above, to suitably modify the operative portion of our order by restricting suspension of Environmental Clearance (EC) dated 17.9.2007-Annexure-D only to the extent it reports to areas which are at Kopri, Thane, 100m landward side from HTL. They further pray that we may restrict clause (II) of the operative part of the order only in respect of portion of the subject land at Kopri which falls within CRZ area and not to the other part of the land which is out of CRZ.
On admission of this Review Petition, Notice was issued to the Respondents, who have entered appearance.
The State of Maharashtra and Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA), were heard. So also, the MoEF.
We have their response to the Review Petition on record. MoEF filed affidavit through Mr. Shard S/o Shri. BC Sapra, Scientist-D dealing with material issue in which at para-7, he listed out the Committee's observations and site inspection of the area in question and ultimately concluded by his statement in para-14 about" the reclassification of land bearing City Survey No.43 (part)/Gut No.86 (part), CTS No.1913 (P), consisting of 20.7013ha of eastern Thane creek is permissible as per law.
The CRZ Notification provides that the State Government/MCZMA should finalize the coastal zone management plan for Maharashtra. Therefore, Government of Maharashtra, based on the ground reality should classified the area or plot under reference falling in buffer zone due to presence of mangroves across the bund in area admeasuring more than 1000m as CRZ-I and remaining area of the plot as CRZ-III or as the case may be, based on the criterion given in CRZ Notification, 2011".
This was followed by the affidavit filed by MCZMA through Mr. Bhagwantrao N. Patil, Director, who did not dispute the stand taken by MoEF through the affidavit referred to above, except that reclassification has to be finalized by the MoEF itself. We may refer to para-9 of his affidavit which reads as follows:
"9. I say and of finalizing the draft CZMP of the Thane district. I further say and submit that such finalized CZMP will be submitted to MoEF&CC, New Delhi for final approval by the State Government."
Though such exercise has been undertaken by this Tribunal during this proceeding, but on hearing learned Counsel for Review Petitioner, MCZMA and all concerned, we are of the opinion that issue under consideration falls in a narrow compass. The issue arising for determination would be whether following directions issued by this Tribunal create any ambiguity?
i) We direct that the MoEF shall take independent decision regarding reclassification of subject-land at Kopri from CRZ-I(ii) to CRZ-III, on basis of available legal parameters and if so required after obtaining necessary factual report from the Collector, Thane, who may take help of DSLR, to examine status of development and Mangroves at the site and give appropriate report regarding existence of Mangroves- distance and height, existence of saltpans, natural habitats of birds, breeding grounds of birds, breeding areas of fishes and other aspects and whether it is essential and permissible to reclassify the subject-land on practical basis to CRZ-III, from CRZ-I(ii) for certain significant reasons, which will not cause harm to ecology and environment. Such a decision be taken within three (3) months.
ii) The Developer may proceed with the development subject to condition that in case of adverse order in the Application, he will not claim any equity and will inform the buyers accordingly. There will be no request for expansion or modification of the project during pendency of the reclassification proposal.
iii) The MoEF and MCZMA shall carry out inspection at the construction site to ensure compliance of CRZ/EC conditions and Environmental Regulations on quarterly basis. Till further orders these CRZ clearance order and EC are suspended.
From factual matrix and submissions of learned Counsel, it is clear that the Applicant wants relief to exclude its activity in the area which is not coming within territorial limits of CRZ Regulations.
We have, therefore, examined the issue that has arisen for consideration in the Original Application. The Original Application No.55/2014, moved by the Applicant, in principal, sought adjudication by this Tribunal under Section 14 of the NGT Act, 2010, to restrain construction activity in land bearing City Survey No.43(part)/Gut No.86 (part), CTS No.1913 (P), consisting of 20.7013ha of eastern Thane creek, which is described as wetland in the map prepared by the Central Govt. As wetlands are part of the land transitional between terrestrial and aquatic system, where the water table is usually near the water surface and land is covered by shallow water Narrating several other circumstances of the specific direction was sought to ban construction activity in the area of land in question.
After due consideration of defence taken of the Review Petitioner -Respondent No.9 and also several other circumstances particularly relating to alleged destruction of mangroves and destroying the wetlands and proposed construction activity of the Project Proponent, this Tribunal disposed of the Petition as referred to above.
It need not be reiterated but things to be clarified that this Tribunal was intending to ban construction activity in the area which comes under the CRZ for the reason construction activities in other areas were not in the purview of the Application and questioned. However, direction No.3, as extracted above, indicates that while issuing 3rd direction which reads: "till further order these CRZ clearance order and EC are suspended" is confined to CRZ..
The Applicant has clarified that the EC granted is composite, which includes for construction activity in non-CRZ area, as also portion from the areas coming within CRZ. Thus, it is necessary to clarify that this order shall confine only to construction activity in CRZ zones and shall not apply so far as EC granted is in respect of the areas which are beyond and not under the CRZ area. With this clarification, we dispose of this Review Application.
Except for the above clarification, rest of the above directions issued by us by order dated 15.1.2016, shall remain unaltered and shall have same force it was intended.
The Review Application is disposed off.
In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs.