Disposed

Raji Abraham v. State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Bombay HC13 Jun 2019WP/1555/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court addressed a writ petition challenging the vacation of an ad-interim stay on construction near mangroves. The bench directed the State Mangrove Co-ordination Committee to restore the status-quo, notify the petitioner and MHADA for a joint demarcation of the disputed site in the presence of the Collector, and decide the matter afresh after receiving the petitioner's comments on the demarc

What did the court decide?

Status-quo restored; Committee to notify date for demarcation with petitioner, MHADA, and Collector, and decide issue afresh after receiving petitioner's comments.

Raji Abraham Vs State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors. — Environment and Pollution | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

(18)-WPL-274-19.doc .

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION (L) NO.274 OF 2019

¶4

Reji Abraham ..Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents

¶5

Mr. Anil Anturkar, Senior Advocate I/by Mr. Sandeep Karnik, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶6

Ms. Geeta Shastri, AGP for Respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4.

¶7

Mr. Nikhil Patil I/by Mr. Vishwajit Sawant, Advocate for Respondent No.5.

¶8

Ms. K. H. Mastakar, Advocate for MCGM/Respondent No.6.

¶9

CORAM : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, C.J. & N. M. JAMDAR, J.

¶10

DATE : 13^th JUNE, 2019

¶11

P.C.

¶12

1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. The grievance of the

¶13

Writ Petitioner is to the State Mangrove Co-ordination Committee

¶14

vacating the ad-interim stay granted in favour of the Petitioner and as a result, construction activity to continue on premises bearing R.G.

¶15

Plot No.2, Opposite Plot No.826, Section 8, Charkop, Kandivali (West), Mumbai-400 067.

¶16

BGP. 1 o f 4

¶17

(18)-WPL-274-19.doc .

¶18

2] The decision has been communicated to the Petitioner by the Member Secretary of the Committee.

¶19

3] The impugned order records that the Committee took the decision in light of report submitted by the Collector. The grievance is that the report of the Collector was not furnished to the Petitioner and the interim stay granted by the Committee was vacated without hearing the Petitioner.

¶20

4] To understand the nature of the grievance, suffice it to record that as per the Writ Petitioner, no construction activity can be carried out within 50 meters of mangroves as held by this Court on 17.09.2018 in PIL No.87 of 2006. As per the Petitioner, the construction commenced on the land in question is impermissible because site is within 50 meters of the mangrove buffer zone.

¶21

5] The Petitioner has documents to show that the site is

¶22

within 50 meters of the mangroves. The impugned communication to

¶23

the Petitioner records that the report of the Collector is that it is BGP. 2 o f 4

¶24

(18)-WPL-274-19.doc .

¶25

beyond 50 meters of the mangroves.

¶26

6] Needless to state, the Committee had to furnish the Petitioner a copy of the report submitted by the Collector.

¶27

7] Before bringing curtains down, we would be failing not draw attention of the Committee to the legal position that, if dispute relates to boundaries of a site, it is advisable to effect demarcation in the presence of the litigating parties. Notice should be given to the litigating parties and the owner of the land i.e. MHADA and demarcation should be carried out. Thus, restoring the status-quo granted by the Committee, noting that by ad-interim passed in the Writ Petition status-quo was directed to be maintained, we direct the Committee to notify date to the Petitioner to be present at the site. The Collector would be notified the date to remain present at site with the relevant record. MHADA would also be notified said date. In the presence of the Petitioner and representative of MHADA demarcation would be effected and the record of the proceedings would be drawn up to report of the demarcation conducted. Report of the demarcation would be supplied to the Petitioner and after taking Petitioner's BGP. 3 o f 4

¶28

(18)-WPL-274-19.doc .

¶29

comments thereon, the issue will be decided afresh.

¶30

8] Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶31

N. M. JAMDAR, J CHIEF JUSTICE

¶32

4 o f 4

¶33

BGP.

Raji Abraham v. State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raji Abraham v. State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R. K. Metal Corporation and 2 Ors. Vs Aura Impex Pvt. Ltd.

Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika Shikshak Sabha Vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation through Municipal Commissioner and 2 Ors.

Ramnath Kachru Wable and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principle Secretary (Wrp and D) and Ors.

Alka Girdharlal Chavda and Another Vs Sheth Dhanji Devshi Rashtriya Shala and 3 Others

Dayalbhai Devjibhai Patel and Anr. Vs the Malad Sangata Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. and Anr.

Bharati Bhimsen Kulkarni Vs the Education Officer-Zilla Parishad and Ors.