Supreme Court Demands Details of 'Real Beneficiaries' of Mumbai's Reclaimed Sea Land

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has taken a significant step in the ongoing legal battle over the land reclaimed from the sea for the Bandra Worli Sea Link in Mumbai. The court has directed the Maharashtra government to furnish details of the 'real beneficiaries' of this land, following a plea that seeks to prevent authorities from carrying out commercial development on the reclaimed area.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan, and Joymalya Bagchi issued the directive to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the Centre and the Maharashtra government. The bench emphasized the need to identify the actual players involved, stating, “We want to know who are the real beneficiaries. Who are the real players behind this? We want to know.”

Mehta responded by asserting that the Centre has granted environmental clearance for the project and that no wrongdoing has been committed. However, the court’s interest in the matter remains high, driven by concerns over the potential misuse of the reclaimed land for commercial purposes.

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing the petitioner, pointed out that the Bombay High Court had dismissed the plea on August 26. He highlighted that luxury houses are being built on the reclaimed land, which is a clear violation of the conditions set by the Ministry of Environment & Forests (MOEF).

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who also appeared in the matter, argued that the subject land does not fall under the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) and is thus not subject to the Environment Protection Act. He questioned, “If the land does not fall under the CRZ area, then how can the Environment Protection Act apply in the development of the reclaimed land?”

Sankaranarayanan, however, countered that Rohatgi was preempting his argument and noted that he had not yet advanced detailed arguments. The appeal, filed by activist Zoru Darayus Bhathena, challenges the high court’s order and seeks to restrain the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation (MSRDC) from planning or executing any commercial development on the reclaimed land.

The petition highlights that on June 10, 1993, the Maharashtra government applied to the Union Ministry of Environment & Forests (MOEF) for permission to reclaim land for the Bandra Worli Sea Link. At that time, the CRZ notification of 1991 prohibited the reclamation of land between the High Tide Line and Low Tide Line. However, an amendment in 1999 allowed land reclamation for the construction of bridges and sea links.

On April 26, 2000, the MOEF permitted the reclamation of an additional area but imposed a condition that no portion of the reclaimed land should be used for residential or commercial purposes. The petition argues that this condition was imposed to prevent the misuse of the reclaimed land for other purposes.

The petitioner also points out that the authorities gave specific assurances not to use the reclaimed land for commercial purposes and to develop it for green areas. However, on January 10, 2024, the MSRDC issued a tender for the development of the MSRDC land parcel in Bandra, covering an area of 2,32,463 Sq Mtrs (57 Acres). Adani Properties, the highest bidder, was selected as the 'selected bidder' on March 16, 2024.

Bhathena’s plea argues that the high court’s order, which dismissed the writ petition, has created a loophole in the CRZ regime. The court’s decision, based on the 2019 CRZ notification, allows developers to reclaim sensitive tidal waters for a permitted public purpose and then treat the land as unrestricted once it is reclassified, defeating the purpose of the CRZ framework.

The petitioner further contends that this interpretation not only nullifies the statutory safeguards of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 but is also against the public trust doctrine, the precautionary principle, and the principles of sustainable development and inter-generational equity.

The Supreme Court’s directive to the Maharashtra government to provide details of the 'real beneficiaries' of the reclaimed land is a significant step in ensuring transparency and accountability in the project. The court’s decision will have far-reaching implications for environmental protection and the use of reclaimed land in coastal areas.