National Green Tribunal
Banda Nagaraj Kumar vs Maharashta Maritime Board on 11 August, 2025
Item No.9 (Pune Bench)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE
[THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.77 of 2023 (WZ)
Banda Nagraj Kumar & Anr. .... Applicants
Versus
Maharashtra Maritime Board & Ors. ... Respondents
Date of hearing : 11.08.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER
Applicants : Mr. Zoru Darayus Bhathena, Applicant No.2 present in person
through VC
Respondents : Mr. Saket Mone, Advocate for R-1
Mr. Aniruddha Kulkarni, Advocate along with Mr. Savyasachi
Bharadwaj, Advocate for R-2, R-3 and R-4
Mr. Pushkal Mishra, Advocate for R-5
ORDER
1. Heard the arguments of applicant No.2, who has appeared in person through VC and learned counsel Mr. Saket Mone, representing contesting respondent No.1.
2. From the side of the applicants, applicant No.2 has drawn our attention to page 82 of the paper-book, whereat the relevant minutes of 115th meeting of MCZMA held on 17-18.01.2017 are annexed and at Item No.23 thereof, the proposed beautification of Aksa Beach at Madh, Mumbai by the Maharashtra Maritime Board (MMB) - respondent No.1 was considered and the Authority felt that beach may be eroded due to solid construction on beach, which was not permissible as per the CRZ Notification, 2011. Consequently, after deliberation, the Authority rejected the proposal. Page 1 of 7
3. Thereafter, our attention was drawn to the minutes of the 127th meeting of MCZMA held on 02.11.2018, annexed at page 86 of the paper- book, where again, at Item No.29, the proposed beautification of Aksa Beach at Madh, Mumbai Suburban by MMB was considered by the Authority, wherein it is recorded that the Authority decided to recommend the proposal of anti-sea erosion bund to SEIAA, subject to the following conditions:
"1. MMB to ensure that no construction is allowed in intertidal or beach area i.e. CRZ area. Solid construction should be restricted to landward side of the High Tide Line.
2. MMB to ensure that construction debris is not dumped in the beach and CRZ area.
3. Mangroves, if any should not be destroyed/cut.
4. All other required permission from different statutory authorities should be obtained.
5. In case of presence of mangrove, no construction should be undertaken in mangroves & its 50 m buffer zone."
4. Thereafter, our attention was drawn to pages 53 to 61 of the paper- book, which are the photographs of the site in question. Applicant No.2l has argued that these photographs show that erosion wall along with the promenade has been constructed, which is in violation of the CRZ Notification, 2011, because the said promenade is constructed right in between the High Tide Line and Low Tide Line dissecting the beach. Our attention is drawn by the learned counsel to paragraph 3 sub-clause (i) (a) and Explanation, read with sub-clause (iv) (a) and (b), which read as follows:
"3. Prohibited activities within CRZ,- The following are declared as prohibited activities within the CRZ, -
(i) Setting up of new industries and expansion of existing industries except,-
(a) Those directly related to waterfront or directly needing foreshore facilities:Page 2 of 7
Explanation : The expression "foreshore facilities" means those activities permissible under this notification and they require waterfront for their operations such as ports and harbours, jetties, quays, wharves, erosion control measures, breakwaters, pipelines, lighthouses, navigational safety facilitie3s, coastal police stations and the like;
(b) to (e ) *****
(ii) & (iii) *****
(iv) Land reclamation, bunding or disturbing the natural course of seawater except those,-
(a) Required for setting up , construction or modernization or expansion of foreshore facilities like ports, harbours, jetties, wharves, quays, slipways, bridges, sealink, road on stilts (road on reclaimed surface] and such as meant for defence and security purpose and for other facilities that are essential for activities permissible under the notification;
Provided that such roads shall not be taken as authorized for permitting development on landward side of such roads till existing High Tide Line.
Provided further that the use of reclaimed land may be permitted for roads, mass rapid or multimodal transit system, construction and installation, on landward side of such roads, of all necessary associated public utilities and infrastructure to operate such transit or transport system including those for electrical or electronic signal system, transit stopover of permitted designs; except for any industrial operation, repair and maintenance.
(b) Measures for control of erosion, based on scientific including Environmental Impact Assessment (hereinafter referred to as the EIA) studies.
(c) & (d) ***** "
5. Having drawn our attention to the above, it is submitted by applicant No.2 that no-where this provision provides for permission to construct promenade at the sea-beach between High Tide Line and Low Tide Line. Therefore, the said activity should be treated to be prohibited activity. Applicant submits that on the pretext of taking erosion control measure, this kind of promenade is made, which is clearly visible pavers which will certainly be useful for the people to walk and in course of time, some vendors may start selling there to contaminate the place. Page 3 of 7
6. Our attention is also drawn by applicant No.2 to page 864 of the paper-book wherein the poles, which were already existing/set-up at the sea erosion wall, have been shown dilapidated, which, according to the applicants, got destroyed only because of water current during high tide. Further, our attention is drawn to page 866 of the paper-book, where there is photograph which shows paver-blocks having been laid at such pathway side along with erosion wall of the sea. Similarly, at page 867 of the paper- book is shown wherein at the site in question, big stones along with the pathway by the side of the sea erosion wall have been shown and it is urged that it clearly shows that this kind of beautification is being done in violation of CRZ Notification whereunder no such kind of construction is permissible except the sea erosion wall.
7. Our attention is drawn to page 539 of the paper-book, which is the Project Layout superimposed on approved CZMP on 1:4000 scale, wherein by black colour is shown the anti-sea erosion bund located between High Tide Line and Low Tide Line. In that, there are other sites also indicated where garden is proposed for senior citizens and children, entrance and parking, cafeteria (for serving), Lawn and Toilets, Children Play area, garden, open gym and space for yoga, open seating area, Bamboo shacks, open volleyball courts, which are towards the right side of sea erosion bund.
8. Per contra, from the side of respondent No.1 - Maharashtra Maritime Board, our attention is drawn by the learned counsel Mr. Saket Mone to page 273 of the paper-book, which is Form-1, filled up by the answering respondent, at serial no.1 indicates that name of the project as "Construction of Anti-Sea Erosion Measure" and not as is being suggested by the applicants as Anti-Erosion Wall.
Page 4 of 7
9. Our attention is drawn to page 540 to 541 of the paper-book, which is a letter dated 30.06.2021, issued by respondent No.2 - MCZMA to respondent No.1 - Maharashtra Maritime Board (MMB) in respect of the proposal for sea front development and beautification at Akasa Beach, Madh, Mumbai Suburban by MMB, wherein it is recorded that the MMB is seeking amendment in CRZ Clearance for Anti-Sea Erosion Measures to sea front development and beautification in Aksa Beach, Madh, Mumbai Suburban. The proposed activities involve a) Garden for senior citizens and children play area, b) Entrance and parking, c) Food Plaza, d) Lawns & Toilets, e) Gym and space for yoga, f) Wooden Shacks and steps, g) Bamboo Shades and steps and h) Volley ball Courts. The Authority deliberated the proposal and observed that the project site is along the Aksa Beach and MMB has proposed certain activities like plaza/restaurant/Gym/wooden shack on seaward side, which is not permissible as per the provisions of the CRZ Notification, 2011. However, the landscaping, playground/recreational ground/garden could be allowed in CRZ-II area. MMB to strictly ensure that no construction is allowed on Aksa Beach. In the light of above, the Authority decided to grant recommendation to the proposed activities of landscaping, playground/recreational ground/garden only from CRZ point of view to Planning Authority. The Authority further decided that activities like plaza/restaurant/Gym/wooden shack on seaward side are not permissible.
10. Having drawn our attention to the above, learned counsel for respondent No.1 urged that the permission for landscaping is granted and the pathway by the side of erosion wall made by the MMB would be covered in landscaping. Merely because the paver blocks are used they will not bring it in the category of prohibited activity.
Page 5 of 7
11. Our attention is drawn by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 to the Report on the Assessment and Mitigation of Damage to Anti-Sea Erosion Bund along Aksa Beach, Madh, Mumbai, dated 18.07.2024, prepared by Ocean Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Powai, Mumbai, wherein it is recorded that based on the site visit made and the information provided, it was found that Aksa Beach is an eroding site and the existing structures are affected by erosion and due to this, there is need to provide anti-sea erosion bund to protect the facilities being developed. The alignment chosen to construct the anti-sea erosion measure is appropriate as the existing electric poles were collapsing due to erosion.
12. Our attention is also drawn to page 625 of the paper-book, which is a part of the Shoreline Studies to ascertain the coastal erosion for Aksa Beach, Mumbai, conducted by the Department of Civil Engineering, IIT, Powai, Mumbai, wherein it is recorded that the beach is found to be marginally eroding over the years. The MMB informed, through its letter dated 06.04.2023 to MCZMA that the above mentioned work of anti-sea erosion measures and tourist facilities at Aksa beach in Mumbai Suburban is being executed through "District Planning Commission (DPC) - Mumbai Suburban Funds" by MMB. CWPRS Pune has already carried out detailed mathematical model study for protection measures for Aksa beach and submitted their report to MMB. MMB requested Prof. Mnasa R. Behera (IITB) to visit the site, verify all the reports and documents and submit the expert opinion report to MMB. Based on the site visit and information provided, Prof. Manasa R. Behera found that Aksa beach is an eroding site and the existing structures are affected by erosion, as shown in Figure-2. Hence, there is need to provide anti-sea erosion bund to protect the facilities Page 6 of 7 being developed. The alignment chosen to construct the anti-sea erosion measure seem appropriate as the existing electric poles were collapsing due to erosion.
13. Having drawn our attention to the above and the photographs of the area near Aksa Beach, it is urged that in the photographs, the structures are shown which need to be protected by erecting sea-erosion wall at the site in question, which was identified in consultation with IIT, Powai. So there is no illegality in raising the said sea-erosion wall and paver blocks are provided on the pathway to give support to the said erosion wall.
14. Our attention is also drawn to page 297 of the paper-book, which is Chapter-2 of the Project Information, wherein under the head 2.3 Proposed Protection Description; Project Details For Construction Anti Sea Erosion Measure, At Aksa Beach, it is recorded that at Aksa beach, the proposed construction of Anti Sea Erosion Measure is for benefit to protect people, livestock and agricultural fields from the sea coast erosion.
15. Having drawn our attention to above, it is stated that there are pavers on the path-way to support the said erosion wall and therefore, the pathway should not be allowed to be disturbed.
16. Heard the arguments of the contesting parties and perused the record. Reserve for judgment.
Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM August 11, 2025 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.77 OF 2023 (WZ) npj Page 7 of 7