The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Centre and the Maharashtra government to disclose who the “real beneficiaries” are of the land reclaimed from the sea for the Bandra Worli Sea Link project in Mumbai, while hearing a plea challenging its proposed commercial development.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan, and Joymalya Bagchi made the pointed observation while hearing activist Zoru Darayus Bhathena’s appeal against a Bombay High Court order that allowed such development.
“We want to know who are the real beneficiaries. Who are the real players behind this. We want to know,” the bench told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was appearing for the Centre and the Maharashtra government.
Mehta submitted that the project had been granted due environmental clearance and denied any wrongdoing.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing the petitioner, argued that luxury housing projects were coming up on the reclaimed land despite earlier assurances that the area would not be used for residential or commercial purposes.
He told the court that the Bombay High Court had dismissed Bhathena’s plea on August 26.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, also appearing in the matter, contended that the land in question did not fall under the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ), and hence the provisions of the Environment Protection Act were not applicable.
“If that land does not fall under the CRZ area, then how can the Environment Protection Act apply in the development of the reclaimed land?” Rohatgi argued.
Sankaranarayanan responded that Rohatgi was preempting his submissions and that detailed arguments were yet to be presented.
According to Bhathena’s appeal, the Maharashtra government had in 1993 sought permission from the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) to reclaim land for the Bandra Worli Sea Link. At that time, the 1991 CRZ Notification prohibited reclamation between the High Tide Line and Low Tide Line.
However, a 1999 amendment allowed reclamation for bridges and sea links. Subsequently, on April 26, 2000, the MoEF permitted additional reclamation but added a specific condition that no portion of the reclaimed land should be used for residential or commercial purposes.
The petition emphasized that this restriction was independent of the CRZ framework and meant to ensure the reclaimed land was used solely for public or environmental purposes.
The plea alleged that despite these assurances, the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation (MSRDC) issued a tender on January 10, 2024, inviting bids for commercial development on the reclaimed land spread over 57 acres.
The tender, titled “Selection of developer for development of MSRDC land parcel in Bandra as Construction & Development Agency,” culminated with Adani Properties being declared the highest bidder and receiving a letter of acceptance on March 16, 2024.
Bhathena argued that this violated both the conditions imposed by the MoEF and the principles of environmental law, including the public trust doctrine and sustainable development.
The Bombay High Court had earlier dismissed Bhathena’s plea, reasoning that the 2000 environmental conditions were based on the now-superseded CRZ 1991 notification. It said that under the 2019 CRZ notification, the reclaimed land no longer fell within CRZ limits and could therefore be developed commercially.
The petitioner told the Supreme Court that such an interpretation “creates a loophole” in the CRZ regime — allowing authorities to reclaim ecologically sensitive coastal areas for a public project and then later repurpose them for unrestricted commercial exploitation.
He argued that this undermines statutory safeguards under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and violates the principles of inter-generational equity.
The bench has sought details from the Centre and the Maharashtra government on the beneficiaries and entities involved in the development plans. The matter will be taken up again after the government files its response.
