Bombay High Court Orders Transfer of 10,000 Hectares of Mangrove Land to Forest Department
The Bombay High Court has issued a significant environmental directive, ordering six district administrations in the Konkan region — Mumbai City, Mumbai Suburban, Thane, Palghar, Raigad, and Sindhudurg — to transfer 10,000 hectares of mangrove land to the Maharashtra Forest Department within two months.
The order, passed by a division bench comprising Justice Revati Mohite-Dere and Justice Sandesh Patil, came in response to a contempt petition filed by the Mumbai-based NGO Vanshakti in 2018. The case underscores the persistent failure of local administrations to implement earlier court orders aimed at protecting the state’s vital mangrove ecosystems.
Background of the Case
The petition by Vanshakti, an environmental NGO, was filed after the state failed to comply with the Bombay High Court’s 2018 directions mandating the transfer of mangrove lands to the forest department’s mangrove cell for protection.
According to Vanshakti, although 4,000 hectares of mangrove land had been transferred earlier, over 10,000 hectares were still pending. The NGO highlighted that 1,637.2 hectares of mangrove land identified in the 2005 map prepared by the Maharashtra Remote Sensing Application Centre (MRSAC) had not been handed over.
The petition claimed that this untransferred land had either been destroyed or encroached upon, and called for its restoration and legal protection under the forest department.
High Court’s Observations
The bench took serious note of the non-compliance with its previous orders and questioned why no district collector had sought an extension or provided a compliance report.
“Even if we consider the 2018 judgment, there is a seven-year delay. We don’t like to call any officer to court, but when there is non-compliance for so long, something is amiss somewhere,” the bench remarked.
The court also criticized the administration for not creating updated mangrove maps, despite earlier directions and a nearly 20-year gap since MRSAC’s mapping exercise in 2005.
The judges further directed that newly identified mangrove areas must be immediately transferred to the forest department’s mangrove cell and notified as protected zones.
Administrative Delays and Excuses
The district collectors sought six months to complete the process, citing jurisdictional and logistical challenges. They argued that:
-
Certain plots belong to state agencies such as CIDCO and MMRDA.
-
Some lands are under central government authorities like the Salt Commissioner and Jawaharlal Nehru Port Authority (JNPA), requiring ministerial approvals.
However, the court rejected these justifications, emphasizing that environmental protection cannot be delayed by bureaucratic hurdles.
Court’s Directions and Timelines
The High Court laid down a specific timeline for identifying, measuring, and transferring the mangrove land to the forest department. It also ordered:
-
The forest department to update its online portal with the details of all lands received.
-
The mangrove cell to ensure that the transferred lands are declared protected forest areas.
-
The district administrations to ensure no further destruction or encroachment of mangrove zones.
Statutory and Constitutional Provisions
-
Article 48A of the Constitution of India – Directs the State to protect and improve the environment and safeguard forests and wildlife.
-
Article 51A(g) – Imposes a fundamental duty on citizens to protect and improve the natural environment.
-
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – Empowers the central government to take measures to protect and improve environmental quality.
-
Forest Conservation Act, 1980 – Regulates the diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes and restricts deforestation.
-
Indian Forest Act, 1927 – Governs forest protection, conservation, and penalties for unauthorized use of forest land.
-
Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 2011 (under Environment Protection Act) – Classifies mangrove areas as CRZ-I zones, the most ecologically sensitive category, where no developmental activity is permitted.
Judicial Precedents Supporting Mangrove Protection
-
Bombay Environmental Action Group v. State of Maharashtra (2005) – The Bombay High Court held that mangroves are protected forests, and their destruction violates environmental law.
-
Goa Foundation v. Union of India (2014) – The Supreme Court emphasized that environmental protection forms part of the right to life under Article 21.
-
M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997) – The apex court established the public trust doctrine, holding that natural resources like forests and mangroves are held in trust by the State for public use.
-
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) – The court recognized the polluter pays principle as an integral part of Indian environmental jurisprudence.
Significance of the Order
This directive reinforces judicial accountability in environmental governance, especially in coastal and urban regions where mangrove destruction has led to severe ecological consequences — including flooding, coastal erosion, and biodiversity loss.
By compelling state authorities to act, the High Court has reaffirmed the judiciary’s proactive environmental role and constitutional commitment to sustainable development.
Conclusion: A Wake-Up Call for Ecological Accountability
The Bombay High Court’s order sends a clear message — environmental protection cannot wait for administrative convenience. The mangroves of Maharashtra, crucial for flood prevention and ecological balance, are not just local resources but national environmental assets.
The success of this directive will depend on whether the state machinery acts decisively, translating judicial orders into on-ground environmental restoration.
Comments
Post a Comment