Eversmile Properties Private Limited and Anr. vs the Union of India Thr Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and Ors.

¶1

1/12 903 WP 789-26.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 789 OF 2026

¶3

Eversmile Properties Pvt Ltd anr

¶4

.. Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Union of India Thr Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and Ors.

¶7

.. Respondents

¶8

Mr. Virag Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate, a/w Adv. Samit Shukla, Adv. Abhishek Kothari, Adv. Shivani Khanwilkar, Adv. Vaibhavi Bhalerao, Adv. Suneet Kr. Tyagi, Adv. Makrand Sawant i/b Trilegal for the Petitioner. Adv. Jaya Bagwe, for Respondent No.3 (MCZMA). Ms.S.D. Vyas, Addl. GP a/w Mr. M.M. Pable, AGP for Respondent-State.

¶9

CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE & MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED : 11^th FEBRUARY, 2026

¶10

JUDGMENT (PER BHARATI DANGRE J):-

¶11

Eversmile Properties Pvt Ltd, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Mira Road, Thane, along with its authorised signatory have approached this Court, being aggrieved by the decision recorded in the Minutes of the 180^th Meeting of the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority held on 11/12/2024, when it decided to defer the proposal of the Petitioner for residential-cum commercial development on reservation plot Municipal Market, Community Centre & Play ground, having reservation under the Accommodation Reservation Policy, on land parcel at Village Penkarpada, District Thane.

¶12

Ashish

¶13

2/12 903 WP 789-26.doc

¶14

The petition seek a writ of mandamus, directing the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) to process and decide upon the application filed by the Petitioner, as project proponent securing necessary permission, in accordance with the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2019 and in particular Clause 1.1 (ii) (b) of Annexure-I without insisting on maintenance of 50 metre buffer zone.

¶15

Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Virag Tulzapurkar for the Petitioner.

¶16

The State of Maharashtra i.e. Respondent No.2 is represented by Additional Government Pleader Ms. Shruti Vyas, whereas Ms. Jaya Bagwe has marked her appearance on behalf of the MCZMA.

¶17

Since the MCZMA, the contesting party has filed its affidavit in reply, on completion of the pleadings by consent of the respective counsel, we deem it appropriate to issue ‘Rule’, which is made returnable forthwith.

¶18

The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Tulzapurkar, has invited our attention to various annexures appended to the petition, depicting that the petitioners are seized of and sufficiently entitled to land aggregately admeasuring, 8, 76, 651.39 sq. mtrs situated at Village Penkarpada, Taluka & District Thane.

¶19

The Petitioner No.1, interalia engaged in the business of real estate development and management, is desirous of developing a project on a land wholly seized off and sufficiently entitled to, bearing (Old) Survey No. 235 (Pt.), 236 (Pt.), 238 (Pt.), 258 (Pt.), 239, 240/2(Pt.), 257(Pt.), 256(Pt.) [(New) Survey No.68 (pt.), 71(pt.),

¶20

Ashish

¶21

3/12 903 WP 789-26.doc

¶22

74(pt.), 75(pt.), 76(pt.), 64/2 (pt.), 70 (pt.), 69 (pt.)] situated at Village Penkarpada, Taluka & District Thane. According to the Petitioner as per Development Plan of 1997 and the Draft Development Plan of 2022, portion of the Project Land, is reserved as (i) Community Hall admeasuring 2,200 sq. mtrs; and (ii) Municipal Market admeasuring 1,800 sq. mtrs; along with (iii) Playground admeasuring 3,700 sq. mtrs. As per the Petitioner, the project land, being part of a larger land, portion of it is abutted by mangroves admeasuring 3,63,381.65 sq. mtrs, which is also situated on a portion of the larger land.

¶23

For the purpose of implementing the project, the project proponent, i.e. Petitioner No.1 submitted an application on 4/12/2024 to the MCZMA for proposed residential cum commercial development on reservation plot of Municipal market, Community Centre and Playground with reservation No. 346, 345 & 343 respectively under the Accommodation Reservation Policy on the subject land.

¶24

It is as regards this application, the Petitioner make a grievance, as according to the learned Senior Counsel, MCZMA has wrongly assumed that the mangroves even in private land would require a buffer zone and in order to demonstrate this, our attention is invited to the CRZ Notifications issued from time to time by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, in exercise of the power conferred under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 with a view to ensure livelihood security to the fisherman, and other communities living in coastal areas and with an avowed purpose of conserving and protecting coastal stretchers, its unique environment, marine area and to promote development through

¶25

Ashish

¶26

4/12 903 WP 789-26.doc

¶27

sustainable manner based on scientific principles, by taking into account the dangers of natural hazards in the coastal areas, and sea level rise. It has also restricted the setting up and expansion of any industry, operations or processes and manufacture or handling or storage or disposal of hazardous substances in the CRZ area.

¶28

Our attention is invited to the Notification dated 6/01/2011, followed by CRZ Notification 18/01/2019.

¶29

Pointing out the distinction between the two, Mr. Tulzapurkar has submitted that in the Notification issued in the year 2019, there is a specific stipulation prescribing that ‘mangroves in private land will not require buffer zone’ and in light of this specific stipulation, the project of the petitioner could not have been deferred only on the premise that there are mangroves.

¶30

Referring to the response filed by the MCZMA and in specific, the reliance placed upon the order of this Court passed in PIL No. 87 of 2006 on 17/09/2018, it is the specific submission of the learned Senior Counsel that reliance upon the said direction is misconceived as the judgment was based upon the provisions of CRZ Notification 2011, but upon the CRZ Notification 18/01/2019 being published by the MoEF & CC, New Delhi, it superseded the earlier CRZ Notification 2011 and it is this Notification of which ought to be implemented by MCZMA while considering the application of the Petitioner.

¶31

Ms.Bagwe representing MCZMA do not dispute the Notifications issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest from time to time declaring the coastal stretchers as Coastal Regulation

¶32

Ashish

¶33

5/12 903 WP 789-26.doc

¶34

Zone (CRZ) and imposing restrictions in setting up and expansion of industries, operations or processes etc, in the CRZ area.

¶35

By relying upon the affidavit filed by the Member Secretary of MCZMA, she also do not dispute that CRZ Notification 1991 was superseded by CRZ Notification 2011 published on 6/01/2011, and the validity of the CZMP prepared under the Notification of 1991 was extended from time to time till the preparation and approval of the CZMP under the CRZ Notification 2011. According to her, the final coastal zone management plans under the CRZ Notification 2011 for the City of Mumbai was finalized in August, 2018 and the Respondent No.2 i.e., State Government is responsible for monitoring and enforcement of the provisions of the CRZ Notification.

¶36

Ms.Bagwe do not dispute that CRZ Notification, 2011 is superseded by CRZ Notification 2019 published on 18/01/2019.

¶37

Submitting that as per para 6 of CRZ Notification, 2019 the coastal States and Union Territory, are cast with a duty to prepare draft CZMP in 1:25,000 scale map identifying and classifying CRZ areas with respective territories, in accordance with the guidelines given in Annexure – IV of CRZ Notification, 2019. He would submit that the process involve public consultation. According to her, the final Coastal Zone Management Plans under the CRZ Notification, 2019 was approved in two phases i.e., for the City of Mumbai and Mumbai Suburban being approved on 29/11/2021, and for District of Raigad, Ratnagiri, Sindhudurg, Thane and Palghar were approved on 25/08/2023 by MoEF & CC, New Delhi.

¶38

Dealing with the proposal of the Petitioner, the affidavit

¶39

Ashish

¶40

6/12 903 WP 789-26.doc

¶41

proceed to state that it was considered by MCZMA in its 180^th Meeting and it was noted that as per the IRS report, the project site falls in CRZ-IA (50m Mangroves Buffer zone area), CRZ-II and Non-CRZ area. The affidavit has enlisted the respective areas in CRZ in a tabular form in the following manner:-

¶42

Description	CRZ- Classification	Area (in sq.mt)	Total area (in Sq.mt)
Community Hall	CRZ-IA (50m Mangrove Buffer Zone)	1087.10
	Out of CRZ	1004.50
	CRZ II	108.40	200
Municipal Market	CRZ-IA (50m Mangrove Buffer Zone)	1530.73	1800
	Out of CRZ	201.12
	CRZ II	68.15
Play Ground	Out of CRZ	3700.00	3700
Sector IA	CRZ-IA (50m Mangrove Buffer Zone)	2258.03	5411
	Out of CRZ	2816.97
	CRZ II	336.00

¶43

7. The affidavit of MCZMA state thus:-

¶44

“8. I say and submit that this Respondent Authority noted that as per para 5.1.1 (ii) of the CRZ Notification, 2019- (ii) In the mangrove buffer only such activities shall be permitted like laying of pipelines, transmission lines, conveyance systems or mechanisms and construction of road on stilts etc. that are required for public utilities and this Respondent has observed that construction of buildings in proposed project is not permissible in CRZ- IA (50m Mangrove Buffer Zone area) as per paragraph 5.1.1 (ii) of the CRZ Notification, 2019.

¶45

9. I say and submit that the Petitioner’s project activities falls in 50m Mangrove Buffer Zone, therefore, the Judgment rendered by this Hon’ble Court in the matter of Bombay Environment Action Group V/s. The State of Maharashtra in PIL No.87 of 2006 on 17^th September, 2018 is applicable. Paragraph is reproduced herein below:

¶46

85 (A) (III) Regardless of ownership of the land having mangroves and the area of the land, all constructions taking place within 50 meters on all sides of all mangroves areas shall be forthwith stopped. The area of 50 meters shall be kept

¶47

Ashish

¶48

7/12 903 WP 789-26.doc

¶49

free of construction except construction of a compound wall/fencing for its protection;”

¶50

The learned counsel Ms. Bagwe, has thus urged before us that in the wake of the order passed by the High Court on 17/09/2018, where it is directed that regardless of ownership of the land with mangroves, all constructions taking place within 50 meters, on all side of mangrove areas be stopped and the area of 50 meters was directed to be kept free for construction except construction of compound wall/fencing for its protection.

¶51

According to her, the MCZMA is bound by the said decision of the High Court and is under obligation to implement the CRZ Notification for protection of CRZ areas.

¶52

In light of all the submissions advanced before us, it is to be noted that the Petitioner, being interested in implementation of the project on the larger track of land, based on the sanctioned Development Plan of 1997 and the Draft Development Plan of 2022, preferred an application seeking permission from the Coastal Zone Management Authority for its proposed Residential cum Commercial Development on the reservation plot, with the reservation being demarcated. From the layout plan demarcating the project plan placed before us, it is to be noted that the reservation for Community Hall and Municipal Market fall in CRZ I-A as some portion of the total area of the said reservation is covered mangroves, but as far as play ground the third reservation is concerned, it is outside CRZ. Sector I-A is also falling in CRZ I-A as it record presence of mangroves and it is the contention of the Petitioner that since the maintaining of buffer zone of 50 mtrs along the mangroves for an area more than 1000 sq mtrs. was a requirement of CRZ Notification

¶53

Ashish

¶54

8/12 903 WP 789-26.doc

¶55

of 2011, the 2019 CRZ Notification, which is issued in supersession of 2011 Notification has removed the said restriction and rather has prescribed that mangroves in private land will not require a buffer zone.

¶56

To appreciate the contention advanced on behalf of the Petitioner, we have carefully perused the CRZ Notification of 6/01/2011, which classified Coastal Regulation Zone for the purpose of conserving and protecting the coastal area and marine waters and CRZ-I are those areas which are ecological sensitive and geomorphological features of which play a key role in maintaining the integrity of the coast and it include Mangroves. The Notification provide that in case mangrove area is more than 1000 sq. mtrs, a buffer zone of 50 mtrs along the mangroves shall be maintained.

¶57

Similarly CRZ-I also cover coral and coral reefs, sand dunes, mudflats, national parks, marine parks, sanctuaries, reserved forest, wild life habitats and protected areas including biosphere reserves, salt marshes, turtle nesting grounds etc.

¶58

The 2011 Notification therefore included mangroves in CRZ-I and hence, where the mangrove area is 1000 sq mtrs, it made it imperative to have a buffer of 50 mtrs along the mangroves.

¶59

The notification also set out the norms for regulation of activities permitted and prohibited in various zones including CRZ-I and it prohibited construction except those permitted and the manner in which it was permitted to be carried out.

¶60

The Notification of 2011 is superseded by a Notification of 18/01/2019 and clause 2.0 thereof provided the classification of CRZ

¶61

Ashish

¶62

9/12 903 WP 789-26.doc

¶63

and CRZ-I which included areas environmentally critical. There is a further bifurcation of CRZ-I A and CRZ-I B. The former constituted ecologically sensitive areas, and mangroves constituted CRZ I-A with a specification that in case mangroves area was more than 1000 sq mtrs, a buffer of 50 mtrs along the mangroves shall be provided.

¶64

The 2019 Notification however, included a following stipulation in clause 2.1.1. (b) to the following effect:-

¶65

“b. A detailed environment management plan shall be formulated by the States and Union territories for such ecologically sensitive areas in respective territories, as mapped out by National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management (NCSCM), Chennai based on guidelines contained in Annexure-I to the notification and integrated with the CZMP.”

¶66

The 2019 Notification is accompanied with Annexure-I providing for conservation, protection and management framework for Ecological Sensitive Areas (ESA) as it was recognized that they maintained the biological integrity of the coast by providing direct and indirect ecosystem services to coastal livelihood. Under the heading mangroves, the following was included:-

¶67

“(i) Mangroves declared as forest under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (69 of 1980).

¶68

Notwithstanding anything contained in this notification, such mangroves declared by the concerned State Governments or Union territory Administrations or Central Government as forest land under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (69 of 1980) shall attract the provisions of the said Act.

¶69

(ii) Mangroves not declared under Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980:

¶70

Mangroves in Government land shall be protected based on a detailed plan to be prepared by the concerned State Governments or Union territory administrations, and in case the mangrove area is more than 1000 square meters, a buffer of 50 metre along the periphery of mangrove area shall be provided. This buffer zone of 50 metre may be utilised for public facilities for developing parks, research facilities related to mangrove biodiversity, facilities for conservation and the like.

¶71

(b) Mangroves in private land will not require a buffer zone.”

¶72

Ashish

¶73

10/12 903 WP 789-26.doc

¶74

The 2019 Notification in contrast with the CRZ Notification of 6/01/2011, directed the State and the Union Territories to formulate the detail environment management plan mapped by NCSCM Chennai, based on the guidelines contained in Annexure-I..

¶75

Annexure-I appended to the Notification as regards mangroves clearly provided that mangroves declared as forest under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 shall attract the provisions of the Act, but in case of mangroves not declared under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 they shall be protected. On detail plan to be prepared by concerned State Government or Union Territory Administration and if the area of mangroves was more than 1000 sq mtrs., a buffer of 50 mtrs along with periphery of the mangroves was made imperative. However, the annexure permitted the buffer zone of 50 mtrs to be utilized for public facility like developing parks, research facilities related to mangroves biodiversity as well as facilities for conservation and the like. However clause (b) clearly provided that mangroves in private lands will not require the buffer zone.

¶76

The directions and stipulations in the CRZ Notification of 18/01/2019 are clear and specific.

¶77

It is to be noted that as far as mangroves which are not declared as forest but are situated in government land, a duty is cast to protect them by the State Government by preparing a detail plan and if the area of mangroves is more than 1000 sq mtrs, a buffer of 50 mtrs along the periphery is mandatory though this buffer may be permitted to be used for public facilities enumerated therein. However, the mangroves in private land are excluded from maintaining a buffer of 50 mtrs.

¶78

Ashish

¶79

11/12 903 WP 789-26.doc

¶80

Despite this a clear stipulation in the Notification of the Ministry of Environment and Forest and MCZMA in its meeting held on 11/12/2024, while considering the plan of the Petitioner/the project proponent, noted that some portion of the reservation as per the development plan in the development of the project fall within CRZ-I-A and therefore within the 50 mtrs of the mangroves buffer zone.

¶81

The Authority took note of Annexure I of CRZ Notification 2019 but recorded that the construction of buildings in proposed project is not permissible in CRZ-I A (50 M mangroves buffer zone area) as per 5.9 (ii) of CRZ- I-A of CRZ Notification, 2019 and it placed reliance upon the order of High Court dated 17/09/2018 in PIL No. 87 of 2006, where the Court while disposing of the PIL had directed that the area of 50 mtrs shall be kept free of construction, regardless of the ownership of the land having mangroves.

¶82

In the wake of this order, the authority deemed it appropriate to defer the proposal.

¶83

We find the decision above to be a half hearted approach on behalf of the MCZMA as it has failed to take note of the fact that the judgment of the High Court was based upon the 2011 notification and the Ministry of Environment and Forest had issued a fresh notification in the year 2019, relaxing the curbs of maintaining 50mtrs buffer zone area on private land. According to us the MCZMA in utter ignorance of the stipulation in the Notification has deferred the proposal, which it ought to have granted being in consonance with Annexure-I of the CRZ Notification dated 18/01/2019.

¶84

Ashish

¶85

12/12 903 WP 789-26.doc

¶86

We find the approach of the MCZMA to be completely erroneous as it has failed to abide by the CRZ Notification, issued by Ministry of Environment and Forest and infact the MCZMA is duty bound to follow the said notification and cannot merely postpone the decision because it is under some confusion. However, the hesitant approach of the MCZMA definitely cost the petitioner and as its whole project may be stalled in absence of the appropriate permission from the MCZMA.

¶87

In the wake of the aforesaid discussion, since we find the approach of Respondent No.3 MCZMA to be unsustainable, we quash and set aside the decision recorded in the minutes of meeting dated 11/12/2024 and direct the MCZMA to process and decide the Application of the Petitioner dated 4/12/2024, strictly in accordance with the CRZ Notification of 2019 and in particularly taking into consideration clause 1.1 (ii) (b) of Annexure I which has exempted private lands form maintaining a 50 mtrs buffer zone.

¶88

While we issue mandamus to the MCZMA to consider the application, we direct the said decision to be taken within a period of six weeks from the date of passing of the order.

¶89

Writ Petition is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

¶90

(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

¶91

Ashish

Eversmile Properties Private Limited and Anr. v. the Union of India Thr Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Eversmile Properties Private Limited and Anr. v. the Union of India Thr Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anna Devram Jadhav vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Dept of Revenue and Forest and Ors.

Nimesh Subodh Dalal vs Vandana Creations Pvt. Ltd.

Sachin Rampal Kalyani vs Shivani Sachin Kalyani

Ramesh Lakhpatrai Aggarwal and Anr. vs Reserve Bank of India and Ors.

Special Situation Advisors India Pvt. Ltd. vs Bank of India

Ajay Mahavir Gechand vs the State of Maharashtra