KRISHNADEVI MALCHAND KAMATHIA Vs BOMBAY ENVIORNMENTAL ACTION GROUP..
Bench: P. SATHASIVAM,B.S. CHAUHAN, , ,
Case number: C.A. No.-004421-004421 / 2010
Diary number: 29965 / 2009
Advocates: VISHWAJIT SINGH Vs
ABHIJIT SENGUPTA
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 23 OF 2010
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4421 OF 2010
Krishnadevi Malchand Kamathia & Ors. ..Appellants
Versus
Bombay Environmental Action Group & Ors. ..Respondents
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (C ) NOS.169 OF 2010 and 266 OF 2010
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4421 of 2010
J U D G M E N T
Dr. B. S. CHAUHAN, J.
1. Civil Appeal No. 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. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellants
were given liberty to approach the District Collector concerned to
seek permission to repair the bund. The Collector allowed the
appellants to repair the bund subject to certain conditions. 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.
I.A.No. 23/2010
2. This application has been filed by the District Collector,
Mumbai Suburban District, to initiate the contempt proceedings
against the appellants Krishnadevi Malchand Kamathia & Ors. for
violating the order of this court dated 7.5.2010 in Civil Appeal
No.4421 of 2010 and his own order dated 27.1.2010 in respect of
Survey No. 344 CTS No. 1 of Village Dahisar, Taluka Borivali,
Mumbai Suburban District and, to issue directions to remove the
newly constructed bund and allow sea water to come in so as to save
the mangrove forest. Further direction has been sought against the
appellants to remove the debris, soil, stones which were used to
construct the bund, from the said survey No.344 to outside the area,
2
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.
Cont. Pet. No. 169 of 2010
3. This contempt petition has been filed by the appellants to
initiate contempt 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 conditional order dated 27.1.2010
permitting the appellants to repair the bund in such a way that the
mangroves may not die and order dated 26.5.2010 to ensure the
compliance of the order dated 27.1.2010 and to remove the debris and
reduce the height of the bund etc., being in violation of orders passed
by this Court in the appeal.
Cont. Pet. No. 266 of 2010
4. This contempt petition has been filed by the original writ
petitioner before the Bombay High Court i.e. Bombay Environmental
3
Action Group and Anr., (hereinafter called ‘Action Group’) to initiate
contempt proceedings against the appellants for willful dis-obedience
of the order of this Court dated 22.3.2010 passed in SLP (C) No.
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. 4421 of 2010. Further, to give directions to open
the culverts, closed channels of water and to ensure removal of debris
on the subject site at the cost of the appellants i.e. contemnors Nos. 1
to 10.
5. 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 common order.
FACTS:
6. 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/notified as “Protected Forest”. Likewise,
4
privately owned lands from the list of Mangrove Areas so identified, the same will be declared/notified as “Forest”.
7. In pursuance of the aforesaid direction issued by the High
Court, the Divisional Commissioner, issued Notification being No.
RB/Desk-II/Forest/CR-2211/Pvt./A-1 dated 18.2.2009, which
included the land of the appellants Krishnadevi Malchand Kamathia
and Ors. In view of the said Notification, the appellants could not
restart the salt manufacturing, though the appellants had been
manufacturing salt on the said land since 1959. It continued upto
1990 and their license for manufacturing salt was valid upto 1993.
The Coastal Area Classification and Development Regulations, 1991
(hereinafter called CRZ Regulations) came which provide for
classification of coastal regulatory zone, according to which it did not
prohibit the manufacturing of salt.
8. Being aggrieved, appellants filed Special Leave Petition along
with an application for condonation of delay of 1368 days challenging
the Bombay High Court Judgment and order dated 6.10.2005.
However, in view of the fact that the appellants had not been heard by
the High Court at the time of passing the order in pursuance of which
5
the Notification has been issued, the delay was condoned and the
petition was entertained.
9. An application was filed by the appellants on 15.12.2009
seeking permission to repair the damaged bund along with the land in
issue. The application was opposed by the respondents. However, this
Court disposed of the said application vide order dated 5.2.2010
permitting the appellants to approach the District Collector for the
said relief. It was clarified that pendency of the proceedings before
this Court or any interim order passed therein would not stand in the
way of the District Collector to pass an appropriate order so far as the
repair of the bund was concerned.
10. 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. According to the order, the
6
appellants would repair the bund without destroying the mangroves or
vegetation on the said land.
11. This Court disposed of the appeal vide order dated 7.5.2010
wherein the parties were given liberty to agitate the issue before the
High Court raising all factual and legal issues. So far as the repair of
Bund was concerned, this Court directed as under:
“By an interim order passed by this court on 22.3.2010, permitted the petitioners to repair the Bund. 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 could be brought to the notice of this Court for appropriate directions.”
12. The contempt 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. Appellants filed a Contempt Petition alleging that Collector’s
7
order dated 27.1.2010 is being unnecessarily interfered with by the
statutory authorities.
13. We have heard Shri Ram Jethmalani, Shri Sekhar Naphade,
Shri Dushyant Dave, Shri Atul Yashwant Chitale, learned senior
counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.
14. It may be pertinent to mention here that all the learned counsel
appearing for the parties have suggested that the applications be heard
without giving strict adherence to the procedure for contempt
proceedings i.e. framing of charges etc., as pleadings are complete and
parties are fully aware as what is the case against which of the parties.
More so, all the documentary evidence, required to decide the case is
on record.
15. Shri Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants, submitted that in pursuance of the order of this Court dated
7.5.2010, the appellants have instituted a civil suit before the Bombay
High Court, wherein notices had been issued to the
respondents/defendants and which is still pending consideration of all
factual and legal issues had been raised therein. The validity of the
Notification dated 18.2.2009 is also under challenge therein to the
8
extent that the said Notification is void ab initio for the reason that the
procedure prescribed in law has not been followed. More so, the
Notification does not disclose what are the statutory provisions which
conferred the power/competence to issue the said Notification.
16. Shri Sekhar Naphade, and Shri Dushyant Dave, learned senior
counsel, submitted that undoubtedly, the Notification does not
disclose the source of power/competence under which it has been
issued, however, the Notification does not become invalid merely for
want of such a statement. Further, it cannot be urged that the
Authority was denude of power to issue such notification as such
powers are available under Section 21 of the Maharashtra Private
Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1975. The said provisions provide that
whenever it appears to the State Government that any tract of land not
being the property of Government, contains trees and shrubs, pasture
lands and any other land whatsoever, and that it should be declared, in
public interest and for furtherance of the objects of the said Act, to be
a private forest. The State Government would publish a Notification
in the Official Gazette to declare that it was a forest land after
following the procedure prescribed therein. In fact records of the
Statutory Authority reveal that the said Notification has been
9
published in view of the order passed by this Court on 12.12.1996 in
T.N. Godavarman, wherein it has been held that Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980, would apply to lands being forests,
irrespective of who owned the land. For that purpose, Shri Naphade,
has drawn our attention to para 4.2 of the Report of the Committee,
dated 19.5.2010 (Annexure R-5A) to I.A. No. 23 of 2010.
17. It is settled legal proposition that even if an order is void, it
requires to be so declared by a competent forum and it is not
permissible for any person to ignore the same merely because in his
opinion the order is void.
18. In State of Kerala v. M.K. Kunhikannan Nambiar Manjeri
Manikoth Naduvil (dead) & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 906; Tayabbhai
M. Bagasarwalla & Anr. v. Hind Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. etc,
AIR 1997 SC 1240; M. Meenakshi & Ors. v. Metadin Agarwal
(dead) by L.Rs. & Ors. (2006) 7 SCC 470; and Sneh Gupta v. Devi
Sarup & Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 194, this Court held that whether an
order is valid or void, cannot be determined by the parties. For setting
aside such an order, even if void, the party has to approach the
appropriate forum.
10
19. In State of Punjab & Ors. v. Gurdev Singh, Ashok Kumar,
AIR 1991 SC 2219, this Court held that a party aggrieved by the
invalidity of an order has to approach the court for relief of
declaration that the order against him is inoperative and therefore, not
binding upon him. While deciding the said case, this Court placed
reliance upon the judgment in Smith v. East Ellore Rural District
Council, [1956] 1 All ER 855 wherein Lord Radcliffe observed:-
“An order, even if not made in good faith is still an act capable of legal consequences. It bears no brand of invalidity on its forehead. Unless the necessary proceedings are taken at law to establish the cause of invalidity and to get it quashed or otherwise upset, it will remain as effective for its ostensible purpose as the most impeccable of orders.”
20. In Sultan Sadik v. Sanjay Raj Subba & Ors., AIR 2004 SC
1377, this Court took a similar view observing that once an order is
declared non-est by the Court only then the judgment of nullity would
operate erga omnes i.e. for and against everyone concerned. Such a
declaration is permissible if the court comes to the conclusion that the
author of the order lacks inherent jurisdiction/competence and
therefore, it comes to the conclusion that the order suffers from patent
and latent invalidity.
11
21. Thus, from the above it emerges that even if the
order/notification is void/voidable, the party aggrieved by the same
cannot decide that the said order/notification is not binding upon it. It
has to approach the court for seeking such declaration. The order may
be hypothetically a nullity and even if its invalidity is challenged
before the court in a given circumstance, the court may refuse to
quash the same on various grounds including the standing of the
petitioner or on the ground of delay or on the doctrine of waiver or
any other legal reason. The order may be void for one purpose or for
one person, it may not be so for another purpose or another person.
22. Be, that as it may, the matter regarding the validity of the said
Notification is still pending consideration in a suit before the Bombay
High Court on its original side, it is not desirable on our part to
consider the said submission raised on behalf of the appellants.
23. The relevant part of the conditional order of the District
Collector dated 27.1.2010 provides as under:
(i) The Applicants will only carry out the repairs of the Bund and shall not carry out any other construction activities on the said land.
12
(ii) The Applicants will not destroy mangroves and/or vegetation on the said land.
(iii) The Applicants shall not raise the height of the Bund above as in existence at present.
On receiving numerous complaints from the public at large and
officials, the District Collector passed the order dated 20.5.2010:
“xx xx xx
The earlier order passed by this authority giving permission to repair the bund is hereby stayed and all the concerned parties should maintain status quo.
xx xx xx
This committee will visit and check minutely the following important points in the matter:-
a) The permission given by the District Collector for the repair of the bund No.C/Desk-21 Mangrove/WS- 610/2009 dated 27.1.2010, which was rendered by the Supreme court in its orders dated 22.3.2010 and 7.5.2010 whether terms and conditions mentioned in the Collectors order are followed by the Applicant land owner or not?
b) Whether the Applicant has committed any violation? c) Whether the land owner has kept water culverts open
or not? If the committee finds that the water is stopped which may ultimately cause destroying of mangroves, the committee i.e. Area Officers should make the owner to open the culverts immediately.
The committee should make detailed enquiry and the consolidated report should be sent to the District Collector within 15 days.”
13
After receiving the report from the Committee duly constituted
by the District Collector on 20.5.2010, the District Collector passed
the order on 26.5.2010 directing the appellants as under:
1) 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.
2) Remove the rubble dumped in the open land in question.
3) Remove the rubble and filling and let the natural flow of sea water, which is at present obstructed, entering inside the S.No. in question.
4) Remove filling used for increasing the height of bund to the height as expected in the permission order dated 27.1.2010.
24. The aforesaid order has been passed by the Collector after
considering various reports of experts/officers.
(A) The report submitted by the Sub Divisional Officer, Mumbai
Suburban District dated 18.5.2010 (Annexure A-20 of Con. Pet.
266/2010) makes it clear that the Tahsildar Borivali and Additional
Chitnis had visited the spot and found that a new bund had been made
having the width of 10 ft. and height of bund 4 ft. and running to 1 to
1½ KMs. There had been culverts in the old bund which were filled
up. The natural flow of water existing earlier had been closed. The
closure of the water supply had adverse effect on the existing
14
mangroves. The direction issued by the District Collector in his order
permitting the construction of bund that adequate arrangement to
ensure that mangroves are not damaged, has not been complied with
and there has been a breach of the said condition.
(B) Report dated 19.5.2010 from the Committee appointed for
inspection reveal that after having inspection of the site, the
Committee reached the conclusion that the appellants have grossly
violated the conditions incorporated in the order of the District
Collector dated 27.1.2010, permitting them to repair the bund. They
have not only raised height of the bund but widened it so as to
obstruct the flow of water in the creek which may cause damage to
mangroves. There has been a violation of the order of the Collector;
the order of the Bombay High Court, and the order of this Court. The
mangroves at places were destroyed during the construction of the
new roads and the new bunds. Debris, garbage, mud and stones have
been dumped along the new road. Large quantities of mud have been
excavated from the site itself and used for construction of the bund.
The Committee made the following recommendations:
(1) That all illegal work should be immediately stopped by the revenue authority.
15
(2) The Bund and the Road that have blocked the smaller creeks should be immediately removed to prevent the destruction of the mangroves.
(3) Proper action as per the law may be taken by the revenue authority. It is brought to the notice that in writ petition no. 3246 of 2004 the Maharashtra Govt. vide circular dated 21.10.2005 clarified that the Collector should take care of the mangroves of the private land and Government lands till the area is handed over to forest department.
(C) There is another report of the Tahsildar Borivali Mumbai,
Suburban district dated 22.5.2010 which reveals that earlier some
culverts were in existence, the same had been closed and a new mud
bund erected thereon. By making a huge filling, the width of the bund
had been expanded by 12 to 15 ft. At the end of bund again filling of
debris had been done. Branches of the adjacent mangroves had been
cut. The report further reveals that a crime had been registered on
22.5.2010 in MHB Police Station under Section 15(i)(ii) of
Environment Protection Act, 1986 against the owner of the land on
account of the cutting of branches of mangroves, causing damage to
mangroves and stoppage of the natural water flow of nalla.
(D) Another report dated 14.6.2010 of a Committee consisting of
six State officials is on record. According to it, there have been
16
flagrant violations of the order passed by the District Collector and the
courts. The relevant part reads as under:
CONCLUSIONS:
Conditions in order dated 27.1.2010
Factual position observed by the Committee on the spot
i) The applicants will only carry out the repairs of the Bund and shall not carry out any other construction activities on the said land.
No structural construction activities carried out on the site, but it is observed that the permission holder has done massive filling work by dumping debris and garbage on the said land. Bund has been widened by mud and debris filling. Now the permission holder converted existing bund into new road. The permission was only to repair the existing bund. But the land holder has constructed a new bund.
ii) The applicants will not destroy mangroves and/or vegetation on the said land.
Destruction of mangroves and vegetation done in a large scale.
iii) The Applicants shall not raise the height of the Bund above as in existence at present.
Permission holder has raised height of the existing bund by 1.5 Mtrs. as well as width of the bund.
iv) Upon completion of the repairs, the Applicant shall file a Completion Report in the office of the Collector.
Compliance report of work has been submitted by the applicant. Despite that work still going on the site.
v) The Applicant will Applicant violated the
17
abide by the final orders that may be passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the SLP to Appeal No.29031 of 2009 in respect of the user of the land.
conditions of the order dated 22.3.2010 passed by the Hon. Supreme Court in S.L.P. No.29031 of 2009.
25. The issue has been agitated from time to time before this Court
and there have been various claims and counter claims in respect of
the activities of the appellants. This Court vide order dated 24.11.2010
requested the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai to
inspect the area i.e. the bund in the lands i.e. SL. No.344 measuring
175 Hectares, situated in village Dahisar and submit a report to this
Court about the status and present position. It was further requested
that he would ascertain and report whether any damage has been
caused to mangroves/vegetation that existed on the said land.
26. In pursuance of the said order, the learned Principal Judge, City
Civil Court submitted the report dated 10.12.2010 along with a large
number of photographs to substantiate the contents of the report.
Relevant part thereof reads as under:
18
“At the outset it may be briefly stated that during the course of visit it was noticed that the debris and boulders including big broken pieces of RCC slabs were found lying at various places on the bund. 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 scale….Apart from dumping of debris and boulders in large quantities, what was noticed was that there were about 12 to 13 places where big platforms were found made of debris and boulders. The length of those platforms was something between 25 to 35 metres each and width was on an average 16 to 20 metres each…..That 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. In the process the mangroves obviously were being destroyed.
….. the mangroves were destroyed at a considerable length from the bund in survey no.344….. the destruction was at considerably a large scale.
….a large number of mangroves were found cut manually. It was possible that the mangroves were cut to increase width of the bund. The cut mangroves were found to have been used in increasing the height of the bund. Breathing roots and branches of mangroves were found stuck in the muddy area of the bund. ….. 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. 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.”(Emphasis added)
27. The CRZ Regulations define for regulating developmental
activities, coastal stretches within 500 metres of the landward side of
19
the High Tide Line into 4 categories. Category I (CRZ-I) is defined as
under:
“(i) Areas that are ecologically sensitive and important, such as, national parks/marine parks, sanctuaries, reserved forests, wildlife habitats, mangroves, corals/coral reefs, areas closed to breeding and spawning grounds of fish and other marine life, areas of outstanding natural beauty/historical/heritage areas, areas rich in genetic diversity, areas likely to be inundated due to rise in sea level consequent upon global warming and other such areas as may be declared by the Central Government or the concerned authorities at the State/Union Territory level from time to time.” (emphasis added)
28. The regulation of development or construction activities in
CRZ-I areas is to be in accordance with the following norms:
“CRZ-I x x x x x
Between LTL and HTL in areas which are not ecologically sensitive and important, the following may be permitted : (a) Exploration and extraction of Natural Gas; (b) activities as specified under proviso of sub- paragraph (i) and (ii) of paragraph 2; (c) Construction of dispensaries, schools, public rain shelters, community toilets bridges, roads, jetties, water supply, drainage, sewerage which are required for traditional inhabitants of the Sunderbans Biosphere Reserve area, West Bengal, on a case to case basis, by the West Bengal State Coastal Zone Management Authority; (d) salt harvesting by solar evaporation of sea water; (e) desalination plants; (f) storage of non-hazardous cargo such as edible oil, fertilizers and food grain within notified ports; (g) construction of trans-harbour sea links.”
(emphasis added)
20
29. From the above, it is evident that mangroves fall squarely within
the ambit of CRZ-I. The regulations allow for salt harvesting by
solar evaporation of sea water in CRZ-I areas only where such area is
not ecologically sensitive and important. In the instant case it has
been established that mangrove forests are of great ecological
importance and are also ecologically sensitive. Thus, salt harvesting
by solar evaporation of sea water cannot be permitted in an area that is
home to mangrove forests.
30. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we reach the following
inescapable conclusions:
(1)The land in dispute has not been used for manufacturing of salt for
more than two decades.
(2)The land in dispute stands notified as a reserve forest, though it
may be a private land and requires to be protected.
(3)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/notify it as a forest.
21
(4)The Central Regulatory Zone Regulations 1991 imposes certain
restrictions on the land in dispute.
(5)The District Collector while deciding the application of the
applicants for according permission to repair the bund has
explicitly incorporated the conditions that the appellants would
only repair the old bund without raising its height and ensure full
protection of mangroves.
(6)This Court while disposing of the appeal filed by the appellants
has directed to ensure compliance of the order of the District
Collector and in case of any kind of violation to bring the matter to
the notice of the court.
(7) In respect of the repairing of the bund, a large number of
complaints had been made to the authorities concerned, by the
public, representatives of the people and various officials and
statutory authorities alleging that the appellants have violated the
conditional order passed by the District Collector for permitting
the appellants to repair the bund.
(8)Various reports submitted to the authorities concerned make it
clear that there have been flagrant violations of the conditional
order and that included :
22
(i) Closing the natural flow of water which has adverse effect on
existing mangroves;
(ii) A large number of mangroves had been cut/destroyed while
repairing the bund and a large number of mangroves were
found cut manually;
(iii) Height and width of the bund had been increased to an
unwarranted extent. The reports reveal that width of the bund
had been extended by 12 ft. to 15 ft. while the old bund was not
beyond 6 ft width.
(iv) Instead of mud, big boulders, concrete, debris had been used.
Several platforms of 25 to 30 mtrs with the width of 16 to 20
mtrs. have been constructed;
(v) Debris was being dumped beyond the area of platform in the
land in dispute making an attempt to increase the width of the
platform;
(vi) The cut mangroves have been used to increase the height of the
bund;
(vii) Breathing roots and branches of mangroves were found
stucking out of the muddy area of the bund; and
23
(viii) A large number of mangroves died because of removal of mud
and stagnation of water.
31. In view of the above, we have no hesitation to hold that the
appellants are guilty of willful defiance of the orders passed by this
Court as well as by the District Collector and they have filed the
contempt petitions using it as a legal thumb screw to enforce their
claims though, totally unwarranted and unfounded on facts. It is a
crystal clear case of contumacious conduct, as the conduct of the
appellants not explainable otherwise, for the reason that disobedience
is deliberate. The appellants cannot be permitted to make allegations
against the authorities and drag them to the court alleging
disobedience of the orders of this court without realising that
contempt proceedings are quasi criminal in nature. They have
knowingly and purposely damaged the mangroves and other
vegetation of the wet land of the CRZ-I area, which could not have
been disturbed. Under the garb of repairing the old bund, a sort of
pukka bund using boulders, and debris has been constructed along
with a huge platform, violating the norms of environmental law and in
flagrant violation and utter disregard of orders passed by the courts
24
and the District Collector. No court can validate an action which is not
lawful at its inception.
It is often re-iterated that justice is only blind or blindfolded to
the extent necessary to hold its scales evenly. It is not, and must never
be allowed, to become blind to the reality of the situation, lamentable
though that situation may be.
32. In view of the above, the contempt proceedings filed by the
District Collector and the Action Group are allowed and the contempt
petition filed by the appellants i.e. Cont. Pet. 169/2010 is hereby
dismissed with the following directions:
(1) The appellants are directed to restore the height
and width of the bund as it was existing prior to
the order passed by the District Collector dated
27.1.2010 within a period of 60 days from today
by removing all debris, grit, boulders etc.,
dismantling of platforms and reducing the height
and width of the bund.
25
(2) All culverts, drains which existed prior to
27.1.2010 which could facilitate the natural flow
of sea water into the land, shall be restored
(3) In case the appellants fail to carry out the aforesaid
directions within the stipulated period, the District
Collector, Suburban District shall carry out the
aforesaid directions and recover the cost from the
appellants as arrears of land revenue and shall
ensure in future that the appellants would not act in
a manner detrimental to the ecology of the area
and ensure the preservation of mangroves and
other vegetation.
26
33. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we request the
Bombay High Court to expedite the trial of the suit filed by the
appellants. In view of the above, the contempt petitions and
interlocutory application stand disposed of.
……………………..J. (P. SATHASIVAM)
……………………..J. (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)
New Delhi, January 31, 2011
27