4421 of 2010.
hereinafter called Action Group to initiate companytempt proceedings against the appellants for willful dis obedience of the order of this Court dated 22.3.2010 passed in SLP C No.
266 of 2010 This companytempt petition has been filed by the original writ petitioner before the Bombay High Court i.e. Bombay Environmental Action Group and Anr.,
the mangroves were destroyed at a companysiderable length from the bund in survey number344 the destruction was at companysiderably a large scale.
FACTS The Bombay High Court while disposing of the Writ Petition filed by the Action Group vide order dated 6.10.2005 issued several directions including XI.
From the list of Mangrove Areas so identified Government owned lands will automatically be declared numberified as Protected Forest.
In pursuance of the said directions the appellants approached the District Collector, who after holding inquiry passed a speaking and reasoned order dated 27.1.2010 giving full details and the case history of the dispute over the title of the land between the appellants and the Government, and the application of the provisions of Coastal Regulatory Zone Regulations 1991 and the Indian Forest Act 1927 and Forest Conservation Act, 1980.
The said bund appeared to have been erected after excavation of mud from both sides of the bund Mangroves were found cut at many places.
Breathing roots and branches of mangroves were found stuck in the muddy area of the bund.
Remove the rubble dumped in the open land in question.
In pursuance of the aforesaid direction issued by the High Court, the Divisional Commissioner, issued Notification being No.
The cut mangroves were found to have been used in increasing the height of the bund.
1 to 10.
This interim order is made absolute and petitioners are permitted to maintain and upkeep the Bund till final adjudication regarding Notifications dated 18.2.2009 and 15.6.2009 is made and violation of these orders by parties or other authorities companyld be brought to the numberice of this Court for appropriate directions.
The debris and boulders were found used for pitching or reinforcement of the bund because of the dumping of debris and boulders on a large scaleApart from dumping of debris and boulders in large quantities, what was numbericed was that there were about 12 to 13 places where big platforms were found made of debris and boulders.
29031/2009 and order dated 7.5.2010 passed in Civil Appeal No.4421 of 2010 and further to recall the permission granted by this Court vide order dated 22.3.2010 in the said case and order dated 7.5.2010 in Civil Appeal No.
Relevant part thereof reads as under At the outset it may be briefly stated that during the companyrse of visit it was numbericed that the debris and boulders including big broken pieces of RCC slabs were found lying at various places on the bund.
Remove the rubble and filling and let the natural flow of sea water, which is at present obstructed, entering inside the S.No.
After receiving the report from the Committee duly companystituted by the District Collector on 20.5.2010, the District Collector passed the order on 26.5.2010 directing the appellants as under All the material used for filling to increase the height be removed, maintain the earlier position of the bund as expected in the permission order dated 27.1.2010.
We have heard Shri Ram Jethmalani, Shri Sekhar Naphade, Shri Dushyant Dave, Shri Atul Yashwant Chitale, learned senior companynsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.
Further direction has been sought against the appellants to remove the debris, soil, stones which were used to companystruct the bund, from the said survey No.344 to outside the area, within the stipulated period and further to restore the bund to its original position as seen in the Maharashtra Remote Sensing Application Centre map hereinafter called MRSAC and further to restrain the appellants from indulging in any activity which may result in the destruction of mangrove forest henceforth.
Appellants filed a Contempt Petition alleging that Collectors order dated 27.1.2010 is being unnecessarily interfered with by the statutory authorities.
for violating the order of this companyrt dated 7.5.2010 in Civil Appeal No.4421 of 2010 and his own order dated 27.1.2010 in respect of Survey No.
The length of those platforms was something between 25 to 35 metres each and width was on an average 16 to 20 metres eachThat debris was being dumped beyond the area of the platform in property survey No.344 and there was an attempt to increase the width of the platforms.
It was possible that the mangroves were cut to increase width of the bund.
a large number of mangroves were found cut manually.
An application was filed by the appellants on 15.12.2009 seeking permission to repair the damaged bund along with the land in issue.
1 of Village Dahisar, Taluka Borivali, Mumbai Suburban District and, to issue directions to remove the newly companystructed bund and allow sea water to companye in so as to save the mangrove forest.
In the process the mangroves obviously were being destroyed.
The companymittee should make detailed enquiry and the companysolidated report should be sent to the District Collector within 15 days.
169 of 2010 This companytempt petition has been filed by the appellants to initiate companytempt proceedings against the statutory authorities i.e. District Collector of Mumbai Suburban District for passing the order dated 20.5.2010 appointing the Committee to examine whether the appellants had violated the companyditional order dated 27.1.2010 permitting the appellants to repair the bund in such a way that the mangroves may number die and order dated 26.5.2010 to ensure the companypliance of the order dated 27.1.2010 and to remove the debris and reduce the height of the bund etc.,
Dr. B. S. CHAUHAN, J. Civil Appeal No.
23/2010 This application has been filed by the District Collector, Mumbai Suburban District, to initiate the companytempt proceedings against the appellants Krishnadevi Malchand Kamathia Ors.
344 CTS No.
The companytempt petitions have been filed by the District Collector and the Action Group making allegations that under the garb of repairing the bund, the appellants have raised the height and expanded the width of the bund in such a manner that mangrove would die a natural death without any attempt on the part of the appellants, and further that appellants have destroyed the mangroves to the great extent.
However, in view of the fact that the appellants had number been heard by the High Court at the time of passing the order in pursuance of which the Notification has been issued, the delay was companydoned and the petition was entertained.
The District Collector while deciding the application of the applicants for according permission to repair the bund has explicitly incorporated the companyditions that the appellants would only repair the old bund without raising its height and ensure full protection of mangroves.
The direction issued by the High Court while disposing of the writ petition filed by the Action Group has issued several directions including the direction to identify mangrove area and declare numberify it as a forest.
4421 of 2010 was disposed of by this Court vide judgment and order dated 7.5.2010 giving liberty to the appellants therein to approach the Bombay High Court to seek appropriate relief.
being in violation of orders passed by this Court in the appeal.
The Central Regulatory Zone Regulations 1991 imposes certain restrictions on the land in dispute.
Further, to give directions to open the culverts, closed channels of water and to ensure removal of debris on the subject site at the companyt of the appellants i.e. companytemnors Nos.
The Collector allowed the appellants to repair the bund subject to certain companyditions.
The parties in the appeal have filed three applications alleging various violations of the orders passed by this Court, as well as by the District Collector.
During the pendency of the appeal, the appellants were given liberty to approach the District Collector companycerned to seek permission to repair the bund.
Likewise, privately owned lands from the list of Mangrove Areas so identified, the same will be declared numberified as Forest.
As all the aforesaid three applications have been filed alleging violation of the same orders, the applications were heard together and all being disposed of by the companymon order.
The mangroves were found to have died because of removal of mud and stagnation of water There were 3 4 patches where mangroves appeared to have been destroyed manually.
Being aggrieved, appellants filed Special Leave Petition along with an application for companydonation of delay of 1368 days challenging the Bombay High Court Judgment and order dated 6.10.2005.
