Bombay High Court
Pradeep Harishchanddra Patole vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Revenue And ... on 14 March, 2022
Author: M. S. Karnik
Bench: Dipankar Datta, M. S. Karnik
9. pil 41-22
Diksha Rane
Digitally
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
signed by
DIKSHA
DIKSHA
DINESH
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
DINESH RANE
RANE Date:
2022.03.15
19:42:32
+0530 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 41 OF 2022
Pradeep Harishchanddra Patole ..Petitioner
vs.
State of Maharashtra through Revenue
and Forest Department & ors. ..Respondents
------------
Mr. Satyajeet A. Rajeshirke a/w. Mr. Kartik Garg for
petitioner.
Mr. P. P. Kakade, Government Pleader a/w. Ms. R. A.
Salunkhe, AGP for State.
Mr. Sandeep V. Marne for respondent no.3/NMMC.
------------
CORAM : DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ &
M. S. KARNIK, J.
DATE : MARCH 14, 2022.
P.C. :
1. This PIL petition is at the instance of an advocate who has expressed concern in respect of patch of mangroves and the wetlands on the Eastern and Northern sides of Palm Beach in and around Seawoods, Belapur, Navi Mumbai.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved because of exclusion of the subject lands having mangroves and wetlands from notification bearing No. FLD-12/2020/C.R.320/F-3 issued by the Revenue and Forest Department dated January 20, 2021 under section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and also because of the failure of CIDCO in handing over the 1
9. pil 41-22 subject lands to the Chief Conservator of Forest, Mangroves Cell, Forest Department, Mumbai.
3. It has been brought to our notice by Mr. P. P. Kakade, learned Government Pleader that the petitioner's complaint contained in his notice dated December 14, 2021 (Exhibit 'I') was considered by the Mangrove Protection and Conservation Control Committee (hereafter 'the Committee' for short) in its 18th meeting held on January 25, 2022 wherein following consideration took place:
Sr. Complaint no. and Action to take Dept. to follow No. subject 45 Complaint no. 163 of This is not the Divisional Forest Mr. Pradip Patole of scheduled mangrove Officer, illegal destruction of zone under report of Mangrove Cell, mangroves in sector Divisional forest officer, Mumbai report 42 and sector 50 Mumbai, mangrove zone received, Seawoods Merul, unit, this property Collector Thane, Navi Mumbai. belonged to CIDCO or report not Navi Mumbai Municipal received.
Corporation.
Mangroves not
observed at said land in
2005 when super
imposed the google
earth under MRSAC map
the gps reading of this
land, and no mangrove
is there now.
No mangrove is lost
there since mangrove
tree is not observed
there when inspected
lotus tank under
complaint.
4. Although a report from the Collector, Thane is awaited, there is a finding which does not support the contention of 2
9. pil 41-22 the petitioner. In view of the decision taken by the Committee, the petitioner needs to challenge such decision.
5. The decision of the Committee produced by Mr. Kakade is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. A copy thereof shall be served to the learned advocate for the petitioner during the course of the day.
6. We grant leave to the petitioner to amend the PIL petition and lay a challenge to the decision taken by the Committee.
7. The PIL petition stands removed from the Board for the present with liberty to the petitioner to move a praecipe after the application for amendment is filed.
(M. S. KARNIK, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE) 3