National Green Tribunal
Banda Nagaraj Kumar vs Maharashta Maritime Board on 16 September, 2025
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE
THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)
**********
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.77 OF 2023 (WZ)
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. BANDA NAGARAJ KUMAR
Having his address at:
501-Am, Neelkanth Arcade
Plot 94, Sector-17, Kopar Khairane,
Navi Mumbai- 400 709.
2. ZORU DARAYUS BHATHENA
Having his address at
T-149, Meherabad, Azad Road,
Juhu Koliwada, Mumbai- 400 049.
.....Applicants
Versus
1. MAHARASHTRA MARITIME BOARD
Indian Mercantile Chambers, 3rd Floor,
14 Ramjibhai Kamani Marg,
Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400 001.
2. MAHARASHTRA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
Through its Chairman
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
3. THE ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA
Through its Secretary,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
4. THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY, Maharashtra
Through its Chairman,
Environment Dept 15th Floor,
New Administrative Building, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 400 021.
5. MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FORESTS AND
CLIMATE CHANGE,
Through the Joint Secretary,
2nd Floor, Agni Block, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan,
Jorbagh Road, New Delhi-110 003.
.....Respondents
Counsel for the Applicants:
Original Application No.77 of 2023 (WZ) Page 1 of 37
Mr. Zoru Darayus Bhathena, Applicant No.2
Counsel for the Respondents:
Mr. Saket Mone, Advocate along-with
Ms. Anchita Nair, Advocate for R-1/MMB
Mr. Aniruddha Kulkarni, Advocate along-with
Mr. Savyasachi Bharadwaj, Advocate for R-2/MCZMA,
R-3/Envt. Deptt. & R-4/SEIAA
Mr. Pushkal Mishra, Advocate for R-5/MoEF&CC.
PRESENT:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh (Judicial Member)
Hon'ble Dr. Vijay Kulkarni (Expert Member)
Reserved on : 11.08.2025
Pronounced on : 16.09.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The present Original Application has been preferred with the prayers that the papers and proceedings related to the CRZ Clearance for the project "Sea front development and beautification at Aksa Beach, Madh, Mumbai Suburban" and the amended CRZ Clearance may be called for; Respondent No.2- MCZMA and Respondent No.4- SEIAA, Maharashtra may be directed to revoke the CRZ Clearance dated 05.03.2019 for the project on account of the fact that the conditions stipulated in the CRZ Clearance were not being complied with by Respondent No.1- MMB; and Respondent No.1 may be held liable for damage caused to the eco-system and is liable to pay environmental compensation on the basis of 'Polluter Pays Principle'.
2. In brief, the facts of this case are that the Aksa Beach in Madh, Mumbai Suburban District is a popular tourist destination in Mumbai, on account of being considered one of the cleanest beaches within the city, which is located within the suburb of Malad, and it's pristine, sandy stretches have hitherto been free from any construction work. The entire Original Application No.77 of 2023 (WZ) Page 2 of 37 beach falls within the category of CRZ- I area under the CRZ Notification, 2011. The presence of the beach serves a crucial purpose of acting as a natural barrier protecting the region from flooding during monsoon months.
3. It is further mentioned in this application that the waterfront has the base of the Indian navy- INS Hamla on one end, and a small beach- Dana Paani on the other. In the month of July 2022, Respondent No.1- MMB deployed a team of JCB machines to excavate the sand, level the beach and concretize a wide span of the Aksa Beach evidently to construct a concrete road or promenade spanning approximately 4 m in width and 600 m in length. The road is bordered on the seaward side by a cement wall, which is further bordered by boulders, which allegedly constitutes a "gabion wall". The Applicants were shocked to see such construction work directly on the beach, merely a few feet away from the Arabian Sea.
4. It is further mentioned in this application that the sea-wall and its adjoining road divide the beach into two, as it is being constructed right in the middle of the beach. A portion of the beach falling toward the landward side of the road will be completely eroded if the wall is permitted to exist, as the wall and the road will disallow natural deposition of sediments/sand on the other side of the wall/road. Images of the construction work being undertaken at the behest of Respondent No.1 has been annexed as Annexure A-1. The Applicants immediately made enquiries about the construction work being undertaken by Respondent No.1 for the purpose of developing the sea-front and "beautifying" Aksa beach, for which Respondent No. 1 had allegedly obtained CRZ permissions. The Applicants also came to learn after perusing the minutes of meeting of the MCZMA that Respondent No.1- MMB had sought to portray the proposed project as being necessary for the sake of preventing Original Application No.77 of 2023 (WZ) Page 3 of 37 erosion of the beach by constructing a "gabion" wall, when it is settled law, and is also well established in terms of best practices pertaining to maintenance of beaches, that building of sea-walls and bunds are widely considered to be antithetical for the preservation of beaches and protection against flooding. The futility of sea-walls, whether gabion technology or not, was confirmed by Respondent No.2- MCZMA itself in its 115th meeting, while rejecting Respondent No.1- MMB proposal, as is evident from Item No.23 of the Minutes of the Meeting. The Authority felt that the beach may be eroded due to the solid construction on the beach. Moreover, solid construction is not permissible as per the CRZ Notification, 2011.
5. It is further mentioned in this application that the use of "Gabion technology" was explored in depth by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the matter of PIL (L) No. 23928/2021, wherein the decision of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai to use Gabion Technology to construct a "cycle track" and walkway on the border of the Powai Lake in Mumbai was set aside vide its Judgment and noted in its judgment that Gabion Technology was not "sufficiently proven technology or is backed and supported by scientific study about its utility sans failures".
6. It is further mentioned in this application that the entirety of the Aksa Beach falls completely within CRZ - IA and CRZ- IB areas, either in the form of sand dunes, or in the form of the tidally influenced land, falling between the low tide line and high tide line. It is further submitted that the sand dunes act, as one of the most effective natural barriers against storms and cyclones and the ingress & inundation of sea waters, is crucial in protecting the integrity of the coastal land and safeguarding human population and development. The dressing or altering of sand dunes is prohibited under Clause 3(xiii) of the CRZ notification and Clause 7 (i)A(c) Original Application No.77 of 2023 (WZ) Page 4 of 37 protects sand dunes as CRZ IA areas. In fact, Clause 3(ix) of the CRZ Notification prohibits reclamation of CRZ areas for commercial purposes such as, inter alia, hotels and entertainment activities. Clause 8(III)(V)(3)(xiii) of the CRZ Notification of 2011 prohibits "Dressing or altering the sand dunes, hills, natural features including landscape change for beautification, recreation and other such purpose". Therefore, no construction activity could ever have been permitted for the purpose of beautifying Aksa beach, on account of the fact that such activity would involve dressing and altering the natural landscape of the sandy beach for a superficial and unnecessary purpose of "beautifying" the beach.
7. It is further mentioned in this application that tidally influenced portions of the beach are classified to be CRZ-IB areas under Clause 7(i)(B) of the 2011 Notification, which are lands between the Low Tide Line and High Tide Line. The reclamation, bunding and disturbing the natural course of sea water is prohibited in CRZ areas under clause 3(iv) of the CRZ Notification of 2011 unless essential for activities permitted under the CRZ Notification of 2011. A perusal of Clause 3(iv) (b) of the CRZ Notification of 2011 makes it evident that "measures for control of erosion"
that result in land reclamation or bunding or disturbing the natural course of sea water can only be undertaken if "based on a scientific study including Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) studies". It is, therefore, evident that a condition precedent to undertaking any erosion control measures on the beach is the preparation of an EIA study. While such an EIA study has been referenced in the very first meeting of the MCZMA where the present project was being considered for recommendation (115th Meeting on 17th - 18th January, 2017), in which the EIA study is not available in the public domain.Original Application No.77 of 2023 (WZ) Page 5 of 37
8. It is further mentioned in this application that the proposed project has been shrouded in a cloud of secrecy and vital documents pertaining to the project have not been made available in the public domain. At the time of filing the present Application, no documents pertaining to the project, including the EIA report, the 1:4000 scale CZMP map made under the CRZ Notification of 2011 and the CRZ clearances granted to the project are available on the website of the MCZMA at https://mczma.gov.in or the website/portal of the SEIAA.
9. It is further mentioned in this application that within the said MCZMA meeting, which has been described in great detail, the EIA report was referred by the MCZMA to indicate that the study of the project in fact showed that the project would be detrimental to the natural "habitat" and natural ecology of the region. Perusal of the photographs of the project would show that Respondent No.1- MMB has essentially constructed a cement road directly in the middle of the beach by levelling and reclaiming the sandy beach, despite the fact that construction of roads are prohibited in CRZ areas under the provisions of the CRZ Notification of 2011, unless specifically built to avoid disturbance of the natural tidal flow of seawater. However, Respondent No.1 has evidently excavated the sand and laid down cement/concrete onto the beach and in the intertidal CRZ-I areas to build a road by way of reclamation. Therefore, the proposed project thus does not only comprise of a "gabion wall" to allegedly control and prevent erosion of the sand/flooding by sea water, but also comprises a second element of a cement road/promenade.
10. It is further mentioned in this application that Regulation- 8 of the CRZ Notification prohibits all new construction in CRZ I areas, with the exception of certain activities, inter alia, as provided under Clause 8(i)I(i)(e) which permits "construction of trans harbour sea link and without affecting Original Application No.77 of 2023 (WZ) Page 6 of 37 the tidal flow of water, between LTL and HTL" in CRZ I areas and Clause 8(i)I(ii)(g) which permits "construction of trans harbour sea links, roads on stilts or pillars without affecting the tidal flow of water" in areas between LTL and HTL which are not ecologically sensitive. Similarly, Clause 8 (V) (1), lays out special provisions for CRZ areas falling within municipal limits of Greater Mumbai. Clause 8 (V) (1) (i) (A) (a) permits the, "Construction of roads, approach roads and missing link roads approved in the Developmental Plan of Greater Mumbai on stilts ensuring that the free flow of tidal water is not affected".
11. It is further mentioned in this application that Regulation- 4 lists the full range of activities in CRZ areas that are regulated under the Notification. Clause 4 (i) (g) provides that the "construction of road by way of reclamation in CRZ area shall only be in exceptional cases, to be recommended by the concerned CZMA and approved by MoEF....". Similarly Clause 3(iv) prohibits reclamation in CRZ areas, except for, inter alia, "bridges, sea link, road on stilt, road on reclaimed surface without affecting tidal flow of water".
12. It is further mentioned in this application that a combined reading of Clause 8, Clause 4(i) (g) and Clause 3(iv) indicates that (a) Roads in CRZ areas are only to be permitted under exceptional circumstances; (b) such roads must be built with prior permission of the MoEFCC; (c) such roads are to be built on stilts so as to not disturb the tidal flow of water; (d) even when constructed through reclamation with prior permission, such roads cannot affect the tidal flow of water; and (e) such constructions of roads require to be specifically permitted under the CRZ notification of 2011 prior to being constructed. In view of these, it is submitted that the present project irrefutably obstructs the natural tidal flow of water, and should not have been permitted under the CRZ Notification of 2011, as the Original Application No.77 of 2023 (WZ) Page 7 of 37 road does not meet any of the requisite conditions, which evidently would obstruct the natural flow of water. It has not been granted permission by the MoEFCC and are not warranted by exceptional circumstances.
13. It is further mentioned in this application that the proposed project was first considered in the 115th meeting of the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) dated January 17th & 18th, 2017, wherein following was observed:-
"Officials from Maharashtra Maritime Board (MMB) presented the proposal of beautification of Aksa Beach at Madh, Mumbai Suburban. The proposal involves construction of a Gabion Wall at Aksa Beach. The Authority instructed MMB to explore other options such as eco system based solutions for beatification of Aksa Beach, instead of solid construction on beach. The Authority felt that the beach may be eroded due to the solid construction on beach. Further, solid construction is not permissible as per the CRZ Notification, 2011." (Emphasis supplied)
14. A perusal of the above-mentioned Minutes of the Meeting of MCZMA makes it evident that the MCZMA was firmly opposed to any solid construction, including that of a gabion wall on Aksa beach. The MCZMA cautioned that any such construction would result in erosion of the beach. The proposed project was pitched by Respondent No.1- MMB at the time of a beautification project.
15. It is further mentioned in this application that subsequently, during the course of the 127th meeting of MCZMA dated 02.11.2018, the project proposal was once again considered. The said meeting reflects the following discussion for the proposed project:-
"Item No 29: Proposed beautification of Aksa Beach at Madh, Mumbai suburb.Original Application No.77 of 2023 (WZ) Page 8 of 37
The MMB officials presented that the proposal is for Anti-Sea erosion measures at Aksa Beach. The project involves repairs of old bund, construction of pathway, construction of parapet wall, providing solar street lights, up to 300 mtr. The proposal project is situated in CRZ 1 area. As per the EIA, clearing, stripping, and levelling of anti-sea erosion measures, earth filling and excavation for foundation will lead to disturbances to the habitats. The MCZMA in its meeting on 17th & 18th January 2017 observed that the solid construction on beach may erode the beach and discouraged the project. However, the MMB officials presented that considering the erosion problem at the Aksa Beach, solid construction in the form of anti-sea erosion bund is required. The MMB further assured that the solid construction will be restricted to landward side. of the Hightide Line and beach area will not be used for construction and no construction debris will be dumped on beach. After deliberations, the Authority decided to recommend the proposal of anti-sea erosion bund to SEAA with 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 Hightide Line. (emphasis supplied)
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 permissions from different statutory authorities should be obtained.
5. In case of present (presence) of mangroves no construction should be undertaken in mangrove and its' 50 mtr buffer zone."
16. A perusal of the above minutes would indicate the contradictory nature of the observations made by the MCZMA. On one hand, the MCZMA noted that the EIA report for the proposed project itself records that the "clearing, stripping, and levelling of anti-sea erosion measures, Original Application No.77 of 2023 (WZ) Page 9 of 37 earth filling and excavation for foundation will lead disturbances to the habitats". The MCZMA further noted that it had previously discouraged the project, when proposed as a "beautification project" due to the erosion it would cause. However, the MCZMA, with complete non-application of mind proceeded to recommend the project for CRZ clearance, seemingly choosing not to take cognizance of the fact that the proposed project would further exacerbate the very issue, i.e. erosion of the beach instead of the same being resolved. The MCZMA imposed some restrictions on the project, including that no construction would be permitted on the inter- tidal or beach or CRZ area. During the course of the 127th meeting, Respondent No.1- MMB had changed its tune and alleged that the present project was being built as an "anti-sea erosion bund" and not just a "beautification" project. It was further discussed during the meeting that an old, existing bund would be repaired by the MMB. A copy of the relevant portion of the said minutes of meeting of the MCZMA has been annexed as Annexure A- 4.
17. It is further mentioned in this application that Respondent No.1- MMB did not explore other options to fortify the beach and undertake anti- erosion activities, such as beach nourishment, despite being directed to do so by Respondent No.2- MCZMA in its 115th Meeting. After the recommendation was granted by Respondent No.2- MCZMA, the Respondent No.4- SEIAA then proceeded to grant a final CRZ clearance to the project on 05.03.2019. Subsequently, during the course of the 148th meeting of MCZMA dated 24.11.2020, an amendment to the CRZ clearance granted by Respondent No.4- SEIAA on 05.03.2019 was considered by the MCZMA. The said amendment was sought by the MMB, which sought to expand the scope of the project to "sea-front development and beautification at Aksa Beach, Madh, Mumbai Suburban". A perusal of the Original Application No.77 of 2023 (WZ) Page 10 of 37 minutes of the 148th meeting of the MCZMA would show that the revised project included "a) garden for senior citizens and children play area, b) entrance and parking, c) food plaza, d) lawns and toilets, e) gym and space for yoga, f) wooden shacks and steps, g) bamboo shades and step and h) volley ball courts".
18. It is further mentioned in this application that during the 148th meeting of the MCZMA, the MCZMA concluded the meeting by stating that it required to consider the proposed project by superimposing the layout on 1:4000 scale CZMP map under the 2011 CRZ Notification, in order to ascertain the CRZ zones affected in the project. A copy of the relevant portion of the said minutes is annexed as Annexure A-5. During the course of the 159th meeting of MCZMA on 10th to 11th June, 2021, the relevant portion of the minutes, of which is annexed as Annexure A-6, the proposed project was discussed further as follows:-
"Item No 6: Proposed sea front development & beautification of Aksa Beach, Madh, Mumbai Suburban by MMB.
Chief Engineer, MMB, presented the project before the Authority. The MMB presented that earlier the MCZMA in its 127"' meeting on 2-11-2018 granted recommendation to the proposal of anti-sea erosion measures at Aksa Beach Mumbai. The project involves repairs of an old bund, construction of pathway, construction of parapet wall, providing solar street light, length 300 m.
Subsequently the said proposal has received CRZ clearance on 5- 3-2019 by the SEMA as per the 158"' meeting of SEIAA.
Now the MMB is seeking amendment in CRZ clearance for anti- sea erosion measures to sea front development & beautification of Aksa Beach, Madh, Mumbai suburban. The proposed activities involves a) Garden for senior citizens and children play area, b) entrance for parking, c) food plaza, d)lawns & toilets, e)gym and space for yoga, wooden shacks and steps, g) bamboo shade an steps, h) volleyball court.Original Application No.77 of 2023 (WZ) Page 11 of 37
Earlier, the Authority at its 148th meeting held on 2-11-2020 discussed the proposal and noted that the activities are proposed to along the Aksa Beach. The Authority felt that MMB need to superimpose the layout of the project on approved CZMP in 1:4000 scale in order to ascertain the project activities biz a viz (vis a vis) its CRZ status. Accordingly, the Authority decided to defer the proposal for compliance by MMB as stated above. MMV vide letter dated 30-03-2021 submitted the superimposition of layout of the project on approved CZMP, 2011 in 1:4000 scale and stating that proposed activities are in CRZ II area.
The Authority deliberated on the proposal and observed that the project site is along the Aksa Beach and MMB has proposed activities like plaza/restaurant/gym/wooden shacks on seaward side which is not permissible as per the provisions' of the CRZ Notification 2011. However, landscaping, playground/recreational ground/garden could be allowed in CRZ-II area, MMB to strictly ensure no construction is allowed on Aksa Beach. (Emphasis supplied).
In the light of the above, the Authority after deliberations decided to grant recommendation to the proposed activities of landscaping, playground/recreation ground/garden only from CRZ point of view to Planning Authority.
The Authority further decided that activities like plaza/restaurant/gym/wooden shacks on seaward side are not permissible as per the provisions of the CRZ Notification 2011."
19. It is further mentioned in this application that a perusal of the Minutes of Meetings of the MCZMA makes it evident that since its inception, the intention of Respondent No.1- MMB was to undertake "beautification" projects to commercialise and develop Aksa beach with no regard to how their constructions would impact the natural tidal flow of water and erosion of the beach. When the MCZMA took umbrage to the permissions sought to "beautify" Aksa beach, Respondent No.1 changed its tune and claimed that the project was actually for erosion control. By obtaining a permission to construct a sea-wall bund in the name of Original Application No.77 of 2023 (WZ) Page 12 of 37 erosion control, Respondent No.1 managed to initiate the process of levelling and concretising the beach and through its application to amend the CRZ clearance, further sought to enhance the development, construction work and commercial activities that could be permissible in the CRZ area, including parking spots and restaurants.
20. It is further mentioned in this application that the proposed project is entirely prohibited under the provisions of the CRZ Notification of 2011, and that it is the malafide and perverse intention of Respondent No.1- MMB to implement the commercialisation and development of the beach under the garb of being an anti-erosion technique, which is evident from a perusal of the Minutes of Meeting of the MCZMA. It is further submitted that Respondent No.1 has defiantly, recklessly and illegally flouted the terms of the recommendation of the MCZMA granted to the project and has clearly constructed the project on the sandy beach in CRZ I areas, in direct and blatant breach of the conditions of the recommendation granted by the MCZMA. Hence the above-mentioned prayers have been made by the applicants in the present Original Application.
21. This matter was first considered by this Tribunal on 19.05.2023 and thereafter on 03.07.2023, when the said Original Application was admitted and thereafter, a direction was issued to the Registry to issue notices to the Respondents.
22. Respondent No.1- Maharashtra Maritime Board (MMB) has filed reply affidavit dated 27.06.2023, wherein it is submitted that the Answering Respondent has carried out the construction of anti-sea erosion bund and Sea Front Development & beautification at Aksa Beach, Madh, Mumbai Suburban. The purpose of the project is inter alia to construct anti-sea erosion bund, as the site is an eroding site and existing structures Original Application No.77 of 2023 (WZ) Page 13 of 37 therein were affected by erosion and to prevent existing electric poles from collapsing due to erosion.
23. It is further submitted in this affidavit by Respondent No.1- MMB that the present Original Application is time barred, in terms of the Section 14(3) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, which provides six months' period from the date of cause of action first arose. In the present case, Respondent No.1 made a proposal for the said project to Respondent No.2 first time in the year 2017. Thereafter, the Answering Respondent took all the steps for obtaining necessary permissions from the authorities and subsequently, Respondent No.4- the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) granted the CRZ Clearance on 05th March 2019 for the said project. The present Original Application is filed on 10.05.2023, which is beyond the period of limitation. But during argument, this point was not pressed by learned counsel for Respondent No.1.
24. It is further submitted in this affidavit by Respondent No.1- MMB that the Answering Respondent has obtained the CRZ Clearance prior to commencement of the said Project. A bare perusal of the pleadings as well as the prayers of the present Application, would indicate that the Original Applicants have sought to raise various grievances and issues with respect to the said CRZ Clearance and that the same has not been assailed in this Original Application, as it could have been assailed only in an appeal. But even this point was not pressed by learned counsel for Respondent No.1 at the time of argument.
25. On merits, it is further submitted in this affidavit by Respondent No.1- MMB that the Answering Respondent had obtained CRZ clearance, under the applicable CRZ Notification for the construction of Anti-Erosion Original Application No.77 of 2023 (WZ) Page 14 of 37 bund and beautification. In the year 2017, Respondent No.1 first made a proposal to Respondent No.2 - Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority for the proposal of beautification of Aksa Beach at Madh, Mumbai which involved the construction of a gabion wall, which was considered by Respondent No.2 in their 115th Meeting held on 17th and 18th January, 2017 and instructed Respondent No.1 to explore other solutions instead of solid construction on the beach. Thereafter, in the year 2018, Respondent No.1 made an application to Respondent No.2 for the said Project for construction of anti-sea erosion measure at Aksa Beach involving construction of pathway, parapet wall, providing solar street light, in light of the erosion problem prevalent at Aksa Beach. Respondent No. 2 considered the said proposal in its 127th Meeting held on 02nd November, 2018 and decided to recommend the proposal to Respondent No.4 - SEIAA for CRZ Clearance. Respondent No. 4- SEIAA considered the proposal of Respondent No. 1 in its 158th Meeting dated 27th February, 2019 and on 5th March 2019 and granted CRZ Clearance to Respondent No. 1 for the said Project.
26. It is further submitted in this affidavit by Respondent No.1- MMB that on 27th August 2020, Respondent No. 1 made an application to Respondent No. 2- MCZMA for amendment in CRZ Clearance dated 05th March, 2019, so as to incorporate additional scope in the said project. On 24th November, 2020, Respondent No.2 considered the proposal for amendment of CRZ Clearance in its 148th Meeting and noted that Respondent No.1 needed to superimpose the layout of the project on approved CZMP- 2011 in 1:4000 scale to ascertain the project activities viz- a-viz its CRZ status and thereafter, deferred the proposal for compliance. On 30th March, 2021, Respondent No. 1 submitted the superimposition of layout of the project on approved CZMP- 2011 in Original Application No.77 of 2023 (WZ) Page 15 of 37 compliance with the 148th MCZMA's Minutes of Meeting dated 24th November 2020, which clearly indicates that the proposed activity was in CRZ-II area and is a permissible activity.
27. It is further submitted in this affidavit by Respondent No.1- MMB that on 10th and 11th June, 2021, Respondent No.2 deliberated the said proposal in its 155th Meeting and decided to grant recommendation to the proposed activities of landscaping, playground/ recreational ground/ garden from CRZ point of view. In pursuance thereof, on 30th June 2021, Respondent No. 2 granted CRZ Clearance to the proposed activities of landscaping, playground/ recreational ground/ garden from CRZ point of view. The said Project is a permissible activity under the CRZ Notification.
28. It is further submitted in this affidavit by Respondent No.1- MMB that the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) issued the CRZ Notification for the purpose of declaring coastal stretches as coastal regulation zone and for classification of lands falling into various CRZ categories, such as CRZ I, II, III, IV, etc. Under the Notification, every activity in CRZ areas could be categorized as prohibited, permitted and regulated activity under the Notification. The said project of construction of an anti-sea erosion bund is a permissible activity under CRZ Notification 2011 as well as 2019. The relevant clauses of CRZ Notification 2011 as well as 2019 are reproduced herein below:
"CRZ Notification 2011
3. Prohibited activities within CRZ -- The following are declared as prohibited activities within the CRZ-
(iv) Land reclamation, blinding or disturbing the natural course of seawater except those-
(b) measures for control of erosion, based on scientific including Environmental Impact Assessment (hereinafter referred to as the EIA) studies"Original Application No.77 of 2023 (WZ) Page 16 of 37
CRZ Notification 2019 "5.1.2 CRZ-IB - The inter tidal areas:
Activities shall be regulated or permissible in the CRZ-I B areas as under: -
(i) Land reclamation, blinding, etc. shall be permitted only for activities such as,-
(d) measures for control of erosion;"
29. It is further submitted in this affidavit by Respondent No.1- MMB that Sub-clause (iv) (b) of Regulation 3 provides that land reclamation, bunding or disturbing the natural course of seawater is a permissible activity under the CRZ Notification where it is a measure for control of erosion based on scientific EIA studies. Respondent No.1 has conducted the EIA studies which is a pre-requisite for CRZ Clearance and a detailed EIA Report was submitted to the authorities who considered the said report and thereafter duly granted the CRZ Clearance. The Answering Respondent states that the construction of the said project is a permissible activity under the provisions of the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification 2011 as well as 2019.
30. It is further submitted in this affidavit by Respondent No.1- MMB that the Answering Respondent sought advice of an expert body, Department of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, Central Water and Power Research Station, Pune (CWPRS) for the design of coastal protection work at Aksa Beach. Accordingly, CWPRS carried out a detailed mathematical study for protection measures for Aksa Beach. On 06th April, 2023, Respondent No. 1 wrote to the Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay (IIT Bombay) to provide expert opinion about the appropriability of location of placement of the said project. In pursuance thereof, a site visit was conducted by the officials of IIT Bombay on 10th April 2023 to assess the site condition and status of the said Original Application No.77 of 2023 (WZ) Page 17 of 37 project and accordingly, on 17th April, 2023 a site report was submitted to Respondent No. 1, which makes a categorical finding that Aksa Beach is an eroding site and the existing structures are affected by erosion. The Report also analysed the site condition before construction of the said project, wherein it was found that the electric poles at the site were found exposed due to erosion and at several places, the severe erosion led to failure of foundation and falling of electric poles. Hence, there is need to provide anti-sea erosion bund to protect existing as well as future infrastructure from collapsing due to erosion and the alignment chosen to construct the anti-erosion measure seems appropriate, as the existing electric poles were collapsing due to erosion.
31. It is further submitted in this affidavit by Respondent No.1- MMB that on 28th April, 2023, the CWPRS conducted another site visit to review the construction of coastal protection work and inter alia opined that the seawall/ toe-berm protection was necessary to protect boundary wall and the proposed beautification. The Answering Respondent sought an expert opinion to review the construction of the said project and the expert bodies have opined after due study of the project that there is a necessity of anti- sea erosion bund at the project site.
32. It is further submitted in this affidavit by Respondent No.1- MMB that on 16th March, 2022, a Work Order was issued by Respondent No.1 for the said Project. Thereafter, the Answering Respondent commenced construction of the said project, in terms of the work order and is almost on the verge of completion. The details of the progress of the work for the said Project is as below:-
Original Application No.77 of 2023 (WZ) Page 18 of 37
"
33. The above table clearly shows that the construction of the said Project is almost complete, and the Applicants are attempting to challenge it now at a belated stage.
34. It is further submitted in this affidavit by Respondent No.1- MMB that the Answering Respondent till date has spent amounts to the tune of Rs. 11,83,85,204/- (Eleven Crores Eighty-Three Lakhs Eighty-Five Thousand Two Hundred and Four Rupees) out of the public exchequer for implementing the said project.
Original Application No.77 of 2023 (WZ) Page 19 of 37
35. Applicants have filed rejoinder affidavit dated 31.08.2023 to the reply affidavit of Respondent No.1 dated 27.06.2023, wherein it is submitted that subsequent to the recommendation for the amendment to the CRZ clearance granted by the MCZMA on 30th June, 2021, no final CRZ clearance has been granted to Respondent No. 1 by the SEIAA and in fact Respondent No. 1 has been illegally proceeding with the construction for the project without a CRZ clearance.
36. It is further mentioned in this rejoinder affidavit by the applicants that Respondent No.1 is wrongfully pretending the present project to pass as one for preventing erosion of the beach, whereas actually it is a project for beautification and commercial development of the beach, which is evident from the proposal for the project submitted by Respondent No. 1 (as reflected in the agenda items titles of the MCZMA minutes when the present project was being considered) as well as the admission made by Respondent No.1 in para 13 of its affidavit.
37. With regard to the reports of the CWPRS and IIT Bombay, it is further mentioned in this rejoinder affidavit by the applicants that the statements made in the report, which was prepared by the IIT Bombay, would show that the beach is found to be "marginally eroding"; the beach is found to be very "plat" [sic: flat] unlike other locations where it is protected by dunes. Accordingly, the said portion of Aksa Beach would actually be suitable for beach nourishment as an erosion control technique instead of the construction of a concrete sea wall. The said issue deserves to be examined by this Tribunal, considering the fact that the MCZMA and SEIAA has categorically disallowed construction work on Aksa Beach and/or its inter-tidal areas. Further at page 553 of the Affidavit, it is recorded by the IIT Bombay that sea water reaches the project site where lamp posts were previously present. This indicates that Original Application No.77 of 2023 (WZ) Page 20 of 37 the portion of the beach, on which the present project is being constructed, is most certainly a tidally influenced portion of the beach and is therefore CRZ I-A area, and not CRZ-II as has been wrongly claimed by Respondent No.1. Therefore, the region is evidently an inter-tidal area wherein construction cannot be allowed as per the provisions of the CRZ clearance dated 05.03.2019.
38. With regards to the reports and documentation submitted by Respondent No.1 in its affidavit, which recommends the construction of a seawall on the Aksa beach for the purpose of preventing erosion of the beach, it is further mentioned in this rejoinder affidavit by the applicants that not a single document is produced by Respondent No.1, which was prepared either by the CWPRS or by the IIT Bombay which would show any recommendation for the construction of the road and commercial development of the beach. The said documents also do not show any consideration of the feasibility of "soft" erosion control techniques, such as beach/sand nourishment which were directed for by the Tribunal in the matter of C.H Balamohan v Union of India (OA No. 04/2013 with Appeal No. 18/2017). Therefore, it is necessary to consider the feasibility of soft measures, such as beach nourishment, to ensure the permanent strengthening of the beach, instead of only hard measures such as constructions of sea walls and groynes.
39. It is further mentioned in this rejoinder affidavit by the applicants that at page 298 of the affidavit of Respondent No.1, a paragraph within the EIA report itself notes that "the best natural defense against erosion is an adequate beach, which causes waves to dissipate their energy, without eroding the coast". It is universally accepted that the most effective technique to ensure long-term protection of the beach and to prevent erosion of beaches is to supplement and strengthen beaches, instead of Original Application No.77 of 2023 (WZ) Page 21 of 37 constructing tidally obstructive "hard constructions" which block the natural tidal flow of water. It increases the flood prone nature of the area and results in a lack of sand passing on to the landward side of the hard construction. It ultimately leads to the complete erosion of landward portion of beach beyond the hard construction.
40. Another affidavit dated 08.11.2023 has been filed by the applicants, wherein it is submitted that under RTI, it came to the knowledge of the applicants in October 2023 that Respondent No.1- Maharashtra Maritime Board had addressed a letter dated 28.06.2023 to the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority seeking deletion of specific condition no. I put forth for the proposed project pertaining to the construction of the anti-sea erosion bund and sea front development and beautification at Aksa Beach, commissioned by Respondent No.1- MMB. The condition that Respondent No.1- MMB had sought to be deleted, stipulated "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". It was mandated by the MCZMA while recommending the Project to the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) from the CRZ point of view. This issue was discussed in the 127th meeting of the MCZMA held in November, 2018.
41. It is further mentioned in this affidavit by the applicants that Respondent No.1- MMB's proposal to the MCZMA seeking deletion of the aforementioned condition no.I prohibiting construction in the CRZ area was addressed on 28.06.2023, i.e. after O.A. No. 77 of 2023 was filed on 10.05.2023 seeking, inter alia, the revocation of the CRZ clearance dated 05.03.2019, on account of the non-compliance with the conditions stipulated in the CRZ clearance by Respondent No.1- MMB. Therefore, it is very clear that as an afterthought, a drastic alteration is being sought in Original Application No.77 of 2023 (WZ) Page 22 of 37 the condition recommended by the MCZMA. This cannot be done without modifying the earlier CRZ clearance dated 05.03.2019, and further, Respondent No.1 cannot obtain post-facto permission from the MCZMA. In fact, a fresh CRZ clearance has to be obtained. Therefore, the same would clearly indicate that though Respondent No.1- MMB has repeatedly emphasized that it has complied with all the conditions stipulated in the CRZ clearance, it has, in fact, violated the conditions imposed by the MCZMA and SEIAA, and has been illegally constructing a road on top of the beach without any permission to do so.
42. It is further mentioned in this affidavit by the applicants that Respondent No.1- MMB has, while seeking deletion of the MCZMA recommendation, stated that there are existing private properties along the landward side of the High Tide Line, hence it is not possible to keep the anti-sea erosion bund on the landward side of the High Tide Line as directed in the CRZ clearance dated 05.03.2019. Hence, it approached the CWPRS, Pune and IIT, Mumbai which has submitted a report stating therein that the construction of the anti-sea erosion bund is needed, as Aksa Beach is an eroding site, and that the alignment chosen to construct the said anti-sea erosion bund seems appropriate, as the existing electric poles were collapsing due to erosion. If Respondent No.1- MMB was aware of the topography of the site proposed by it for the project, it should have raised the concern regarding the existence of private properties along the landward side of the High Tide Line prior to the CRZ clearance being granted. The fact that this concern has been raised at such a belated stage makes it evident that Respondent No.1 did not intend to comply with the CRZ clearance and that it has been constructing the seawall in complete violation of the CRZ Clearance dated 05.03.2019.
Original Application No.77 of 2023 (WZ) Page 23 of 37
43. It is further mentioned in this affidavit by the applicants that Respondent No.1- MMB also did not provide any scientific studies indicating therein that Aksa Beach is an eroding site, making it necessary to construct the anti-sea erosion bund or that the construction is required at the site proposed by it.
44. Respondent No.1- MMB has filed additional affidavit dated 22.02.2024, wherein it is submitted that the purpose of construction of the said project, being anti-sea erosion bund, was to prevent erosion of the beach and also to prevent further destruction and collapsing of existing electric poles due to the same. As indicated in the studies carried out by CWPRS dated 18th January 2022 and 12th May 2023 and IIT Bombay dated 17th April 2023, it was noted that the said project is aligned with the existing electric poles and that the same is between High Tide Line and Low Tide Line which is a permissible activity in CRZ-IB of the CRZ Notification, 2011. Hence, due to this, the Specific Condition No.1 imposed by Respondent No. 2-MCZMA necessitated to be deleted, as the same was not in line with the purpose of the said project in the first place.
45. It is further mentioned in this additional affidavit by Respondent No.1- MMB that on 28th June 2023, Respondent No.1 applied to Respondent No. 2- MCZMA to delete the specific condition-I of the CRZ Clearance dated 5th March 2019 because Respondent No. 1 observed that the existing electric poles were collapsing due to erosion and damage was being caused to the existing private properties and proposed public facilities along the landward side of the High Tide Line. Due to this, the anti-sea erosion bund could not be on the landward side of the High Tide Line. On 10th August 2023, Respondent No.2- MCZMA considered the said proposal of Respondent No.1- MMB and recorded therein that there were existing poles and proposed public facilities nearby, hence, it was not Original Application No.77 of 2023 (WZ) Page 24 of 37 possible to keep anti-sea erosion bund on landward side of HTL. On deliberation, Respondent No. 2-MCZMA requested Respondent No.1 to submit a scientific study from erosion point of view from a competent organization.
46. It is further mentioned in this additional affidavit by Respondent No.1- MMB that on 10th October 2023, Respondent No. 1- MMB requested Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Bombay to carry out shoreline change analysis to ascertain the coastal erosion at Aksa Beach. The said report categorically concludes that Aksa beach is an eroding site and the existing structures are affected by erosion. Due to this, there was need to provide anti-sea erosion bund to protect the facilities being developed. It also concluded that the alignment chosen to construct the anti-sea erosion measure was appropriate, as the existing electric poles were collapsing due to erosion. It was further noted that the sediment analysis shows the erosion along the Aksa beach and accretion near off-shore of Aksa beach. The flat region above high tide line is likely prone to erosion during storm and monsoon weather. Therefore, erosion protection measures should be implemented to protect the beach and infrastructure adjoining the beach. On 02nd February, 2024 the meeting was scheduled for considering the said proposal, wherein Respondent No.1- MMB presented the shoreline studies to ascertain the coastal erosion for Aksa beach, Mumbai, Maharashtra, which was conducted by the IIT Mumbai. In these facts and circumstances, it is stated that Respondent No. 1- MMB has submitted the requisite scientific study to MCZMA in compliance with the Order dated 01st December, 2023 passed in the present matter by this Tribunal. Therefore, it is reiterated that the said project is a permissible activity under CRZ Notification, 2011 and there has been no infirmity on the part Original Application No.77 of 2023 (WZ) Page 25 of 37 of Answering Respondent in carrying out the construction of the said project in accordance with law.
47. Respondent No.2- MCZMA has filed reply affidavit dated 22.02.2024, wherein it is submitted that the applicants have not challenged the CRZ Clearance dated 05.03.2019, hence under the garb of filing the present application, the said clearance cannot be assailed.
48. It is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent No.2- MCZMA that Applicant No.2 had raised a similar issue against the anti-sea erosion bund in Village Versova, Mumbai in Original Application No. 64/2021 (Zoru Daryus Bhathena v State of Maharashtra), which was rejected by this Tribunal vide final Order and Judgment dated 23rd May, 2023.
49. It is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent No.2- MCZMA that firstly, application made by Respondent No.1- MMB was considered by the MCZMA in their 115th Meeting held between 17th - 18th January, 2017. Respondent No.1 had proposed construction of Gabion Wall, but MCZMA instructed the MMB to explore other options such as ecosystem based solutions for beautification, instead of solid construction on beach and decided to reject the proposal from CRZ point of view. Thereafter, the same details are given upto para no.19, which we have already dealt with in the reply affidavit of Respondent No.1.
50. In para no.20 of the affidavit by Respondent No.2- MCZMA, it is further mentioned that the Authority after deliberation decided to recommend the proposal to SEIAA for modification of the specific condition no. (I) to the effect "MMB to ensure that Anti Sea Erosion bund shall occupy minimum intertidal area which is necessary". This was held in the Minutes of the 172nd meeting of the MCZMA held on 05th February, 2024, which is annexed as Annexure 8 to this affidavit.
Original Application No.77 of 2023 (WZ) Page 26 of 37
51. Applicants have filed rejoinder affidavit dated 19.08.2024 against the reply affidavit of Respondent No.2- MCZMA, wherein it is submitted that Respondent No.2, while considering the proposal for the Project, has categorically disallowed any construction on the beach and has only allowed some landscaping activities and activities permissible under the CRZ Notification, 2011. The construction activities undertaken by Respondent No. 1- MMB, particularly the construction of a road directly on the natural sandy beach, have been expressly disallowed by the MCZMA. Therefore, the Applicants are not challenging the CRZ Clearance dated 05.03.2019, but in fact, are seeking the revocation of the CRZ Clearances dated 05.03.2019 and 10.06.2021 & 11.06.2021 granted to Respondent No. 1- MMB on the grounds that Respondent No.1- MMB has significantly exceeded and flagrantly violated the terms & conditions of the CRZ clearance issued to it.
52. It is further mentioned in this rejoinder affidavit by the applicants that subsequently, in the 127th Meeting of the MCZMA held on 02.11.2018, the Project was considered once again where Respondent No.1- MMB changed its stance, asserting that the Project was intended as an "anti-sea erosion bund", involving, inter alia, repair of an existing old bund.
53. It is further mentioned in this rejoinder affidavit by the applicants with reference to Para nos.14 & 15 of the Affidavit-in-Reply of Respondent No. 2 that a perusal of the 155th Minutes of Meeting of the MCZMA, denotes that Respondent No.2 declined the permission for plaza/restaurant/gym/wooden shacks since the same is not permissible as per the provisions of the CRZ Notification, 2011, and allowed landscaping, playgrounds/recreation grounds and gardens in CRZ-II areas, specifically directing that no construction be allowed on Aksa Original Application No.77 of 2023 (WZ) Page 27 of 37 Beach. However, Aksa Beach entirely falls within CRZ-IA and CRZ-IB zones either in the form of sand dunes or in the form of tidally influenced land falling between the low tide line and the high tide line and none of it is a CRZ-II area. CRZ-I areas are environmentally most critical as per the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2019. The CRZ-II area falls beyond the beach area.
54. It is further mentioned in this rejoinder affidavit by the applicants that it came to the Applicants' attention in October 2023, through a response dated 21.09.2023 under RTI query dated 17.02.2023, that Respondent No. 1 had sent a letter dated 28.06.2023 to Respondent No. 2, requesting therein for deletion of specific Condition- I imposed by Respondent No. 2 while recommending the Project to Respondent No. 4 from the CRZ point of view. This issue was discussed at the 127th meeting of the MCZMA held on 02.11.2018. Specific condition no. I mandated Respondent No. 1 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 HTL." Respondent No. 1's request for deletion of specific condition No. I came after the present Application was filed on 10.05.2023 seeking, inter alia, revocation of the CRZ clearance dated 05.03.2019 on account of Respondent No.1 failing to comply with the conditions stipulated therein, which clearly demonstrates that Respondent No. 1 has illegally proceeded with construction of a road directly on the beach, contrary to the conditions stipulated by Respondent Nos.2 & 4 for the Project, and is now seeking a drastic alteration to those conditions post-facto.
55. It is further mentioned in this rejoinder affidavit by the applicants that it is universally accepted that the most effective technique to ensure long-term protection of beaches and to prevent erosion of beaches is to Original Application No.77 of 2023 (WZ) Page 28 of 37 supplement and strengthen beaches, instead of constructing tidally obstructive "hard constructions" which block the natural tidal flow of water. This would increase the flood prone nature of the area due to lack of sand and sediment passing on to the landward side of the hard construction. It would ultimately lead to the complete erosion of the said sediment towards landward portion beyond the hard construction. It is therefore, worth considering why Respondent No. 2- MCZMA did not direct Respondent No. 1- MMB to replace or fortify the eroded poles or explore the feasibility of "soft" erosion control techniques such as beach/sand nourishment, which were directed for by the Tribunal, vide its order dated 11.04.2022 in C.H. Balamohan v. Union of India (OA No. 04/2013 with Appeal No. 18/2017). Respondent No. 2- MCZMA, in its 172nd Meeting held on 05.02.2024, noted that "now, it came to the notice of the Authority from the representation of MMB and various report of IIT & CWPRS called by the Authority that there are constraints and that the seawall could not be restricted on landward side of HTL", and accordingly, opined that the condition stipulated by it earlier requires to be amended. However, Respondent No. 2- MCZMA failed to consider that Respondent No.1 was aware of the topography of the site proposed by it for the Project, and should have addressed the issue of allegedly existing private properties and proposed public facilities along the landward side of the High Tide Line, prior to the grant of the CRZ clearance dated 05.03.2019. The fact that this concern has been raised at such a belated stage makes it evident that Respondent No.1 did not intend to comply with the CRZ clearance.
56. It is further mentioned in this rejoinder affidavit by the applicants that there is no provision either in CRZ Notification, 2011 or CRZ Notification, 2019, which permits a motorable road, together with benches, to be constructed on beaches on sand dunes which are CRZ-1A areas. Original Application No.77 of 2023 (WZ) Page 29 of 37 Neither is the construction of concrete seawalls mentioned as a permissible activity in the CRZ Notification. Instead the CRZ notification only permits "bunding" as erosion control techniques. At page no.553 of the paper book in the Affidavit-in-Reply of Respondent No. 1, it is recorded by IIT Bombay that sea water reaches the Project site where lamp posts were previously present, thus clearly indicats that the portion of the beach, on which the Project is being constructed, is a tidally influenced portion of the beach and hence, a CRZ I-A area, and not a CRZ-II. Therefore, the region is evidently an inter-tidal area wherein construction cannot be allowed as per the CRZ clearance dated 05.03.2019.
57. It is further mentioned in this rejoinder affidavit by the applicants that Respondent No.2 recommended a proposal to Respondent No.4- SEIAA for modification of specific condition no. I stating therein that "MMB to ensure that Anti-Sea Erosion bund shall occupy minimum intertidal area which is necessary". However, there is no clarity or specificity regarding the definition of "minimal intertidal area". This lack of clarity will further expand the scope for Respondent No.1- MMB to undertake construction of the Project in flagrant violation of environmental norms. Respondent No.2- MCZMA has not even suggested a monitoring mechanism for the construction activities being carried out by Respondent No. 1- MMB, particularly, given the construction already carried out by Respondent No.1- MMB. The Project will result in the portion of the beach falling towards the landward side of the road to be completely eroded if the wall is permitted to exist, as the wall and the road will disallow natural deposition of sediments/ sand on the other side of the wall/road. At any rate, Respondent No.2- MCZMA cannot grant post-facto permission to Respondent No.1- MMB, especially considering Respondent No.2 had itself rejected Respondent No.1' s proposal in the past on the ground that that Original Application No.77 of 2023 (WZ) Page 30 of 37 beach may be eroded due to solid construction on the beach and expressly disallowed any construction on the beach.
58. Short additional affidavit dated 17.03.2025 has also been filed by Respondent No.1- MMB, in which we find that nothing new fact has been stated, rather the facts, which have already been mentioned by us above while dealing with the reply affidavit of Respondent No.1, has been submitted. Besides, in para no.14 of this affidavit, it is prayed that the present Original Application may be dismissed with costs.
59. We have heard the argument of learned counsel for the applicants as well as that of learned counsel for the other parties and perused the entire record in depth.
60. We had heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties at length on 11.08.2025 and have quoted the same in the order of the said date. Therefore, order dated 11.08.2025 shall be part of this Judgment as well.
61. After having gone through the pleadings, we are of the view that this Tribunal has to decide as to whether CRZ clearance dated 05.03.2019 for the project "Sea front development and beautification at Aksa Beach, Madh, Mumbai Suburban" and the amended CRZ Clearance dated 19.07.2024 (annexed at page no.883 of the paper book) can be revoked on account of the fact that the conditions stipulated therein have not been complied with.
62. In regard to the above, we find that the CRZ Clearance dated 05.03.2019 is annexed at Exhibit- D at page nos.389 to 398 of the paper book and in the 158th Meeting of SEIAA held on 27.02.2019, which is annexed at Exhibit- 'C' at page nos.379 to 388 of the paper book, SEIAA Original Application No.77 of 2023 (WZ) Page 31 of 37 has taken decision (at page no.388 of the paper book) and imposed specific condition no.1 to the effect that MMB to ensure that no construction is allowed in intertidal or beach area i.e. CRZ area. Solid construction shall be restricted to landward side of the High Tide Line. This condition was amended by the SEIAA through their letter dated 19.07.2024 addressed to Respondent No.1- MMB and the said condition has been changed to the effect "Specific condition no.1- MMB to ensure that Anti Sea erosion bund shall occupy minimum intertidal area which is necessary".
63. Now, we would come to the EIA Report, which is annexed at page nos.283 to 377 of the paper book, in which need for the project has been recorded to the effect "Maharashtra Maritime Board, Mumbai wishes to provide the facilities for constructing Anti-Sea Erosion Measure, main objective of the provision of anti-sea erosion measure is to protect people, livestock and agricultural fields from the sea coast erosion. This tract is famous for its long coastline and convenient harbours. Also, a large number of commercial apartments are located along the coastline. The erosion of the land is frequently happening due to the waves of Sea water. Therefore, there should be some protection provided to reduce this erosion of the alluvial land soil. By considering the above scenario, the decision is taken to implement the Environmental Impact report for the construction of the Anti- sea erosion measure at the coastal region situated at Aksa Beach in Mumbai Tehsil in Mumbai Suburban District of Maharashtra. ..."
64. From the above, it is clear from the objective that it was to protect a large number of commercial apartments, which are located along the coastline as well as to protect the people, livestock and agricultural fields from the sea coast erosion etc., for which sea erosion bund was proposed to be constructed.
Original Application No.77 of 2023 (WZ) Page 32 of 37
65. Now, we would come to page no.429 of the paper book, which is Environmental Impact Assessment for Proposed Sea Forest Development and Beautification at Aksa Beach, Madh, District Mumbai, wherein Sea Erosion Bund is shown by black line, which is located between the HTL and LTL, which is close to the HTL but not towards the landward side of the HTL.
66. We find the condition in the first CRZ Clearance, which was put by the MCZMA that it should be towards the landward side of the HTL, was found to be incorrect and hence, the same was got modified to the effect that MMB to ensure that Anti-Sea erosion bund shall occupy minimum intertidal area which is necessary. So, this sea erosion bund clearly appears to be located, as per this recommendation, in the intertidal area, which is located naturally between the HTL and LTL.
67. Next, we would come to page no.539 of the paper book, which is a Project Layout superimposed on Approved CZMP (1:4000). The same is reproduced herein below for the sake of convenience:-
"
"Original Application No.77 of 2023 (WZ) Page 33 of 37
68. In the above Map, the sea erosion bund approved to be built is shown by black line, which is located within LTL and HTL, and beyond HTL are shown the other proposals, which were made by Respondent No.1 to be constructed at the said area, i.e. garden for senior citizens and children play area; entrance and parking; food plaza; lawns and toilets; gym and space for yoga; wooden shacks and steps; bamboo shades and step; and volleyball courts. These constructions, which were to be constructed in CRZ-II area, were rejected by the MCZMA through their letter dated 30.06.2021, which is annexed at page nos.540 to 541 of the paper book and instead of these constructions, the only constructions, which were permitted, were the landscaping, playground/recreational ground/garden in CRZ- II area.
69. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the promenade, which has been made besides the sea erosion bund (retaining wall), would be covered in the landscaping. But in our estimation, the same cannot fall in that definition because landscaping is altogether different thing, nor would the same be covered under playground/ recreational ground or garden. The photographs of the said promenade are shown at Exhibit- K at page nos.556 to 557 of the paper book etc. The said promenade is shown prominently in these photographs after the sea erosion bund. This promenade definitely appears to be quite broad, on which even a four- wheeler can easily be run.
70. In regard to the above, we would like to quote here relevant provision of the CRZ Notification, 2011 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,-Original Application No.77 of 2023 (WZ) Page 34 of 37
(a) Those directly related to waterfront or directly needing foreshore facilities:
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) *****"
71. A close scrutiny of the above provision would indicate that any kind of construction is prohibited in that area, except which has been cited above, which include erosion control measures. In the case in hand, Original Application No.77 of 2023 (WZ) Page 35 of 37 the only permissible activity is the construction of sea erosion bund (retaining wall) to be constructed and beyond that, nothing pakka could have been constructed at the site in question, which is in CRZ area. In the case in hand, the photographs would clearly indicate that the Project Proponent has tried to exceed its permission by making promenade at the site of sea erosion bund without any such proposal having been approved by MCZMA. Even at page no.550 of the paper book, the report of IIT, Mumbai has not shown any promenade, which is apparent from perusal of the same, as follows:-
"
"
72. Therefore, promenade is certainly over-stretching the permission by Respondent No.1- MMB.
73. In view of above observations, we are of the view that the said anti- sea erosion bund of the project is rightly built at the site in question, however, the promenade was never part of approvals. CRZ Clearance need Original Application No.77 of 2023 (WZ) Page 36 of 37 not be revoked. Therefore, the said promenade shall be removed within two months from the date of uploading of this Judgment.
74. With the above observations/direction, we dispose of the present Original Application accordingly.
75. There shall be no order as to costs.
Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM September 16, 2025 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.77 OF 2023 (WZ) P.Kr.
Original Application No.77 of 2023 (WZ) Page 37 of 37