No CRZ Curbs: Bombay HC Greenlights Bandra-Worli Land Redevelopment

The Bombay High Court has dismissed two public interest litigations (PILs) challenging the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation (MSRDC) from commercially developing land reclaimed during the construction of the Bandra-Worli Sea Link. The court ruled that conditions imposed under previous Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) notifications cannot be enforced once the land falls outside the ambit of CRZ under the current regulatory regime.

The PILs contended that permission to reclaim land for the sea link was granted under the 1991 CRZ Notification with a clear restriction prohibiting any residential or commercial use. Petitioners argued that the restriction must subsist perpetually, invoking the public trust doctrine and the principle of non-regression in environmental law.

Rejecting these arguments, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne observed, “CRZ being a delegated piece of legislation, the same must be strictly and literally construed and interpreted and a restriction which is not specifically provided cannot be read into the same.”

The bench clarified that under the 2019 CRZ Notification, the subject land is no longer part of the CRZ and hence cannot attract earlier restrictions.

The court further noted that the 1991 CRZ Notification prohibited reclamation but was amended in 1997 to permit reclamation for construction of bridges and sea links.

Bandra-Worli Sea Link project received clearance in 1999, subject to conditions including that the reclaimed land would not be used for commercial or residential purposes. However, subsequent notifications altered the CRZ boundaries, from 500 meters under the 1991 notification to 100 meters in 2011 and later to 50 meters in 2019 along tidal-influenced water bodies.

Based on a demarcation by the National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management and Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP), the land now falls entirely outside CRZ.

On whether earlier restrictions survive despite the change in law, the court held,

“Once a land is not treated as Coastal Regulation Zone under the 2019 CRZ Notification, no restriction provided for in the said Notification can apply to such piece of land. Therefore, CRZ Notification cannot be pressed into service for the purpose of enforcing any restriction on any land which is not a part of Coastal Regulation Zone.”

The bench also emphasized the principle of sustainable development, stating, “Since sustainable development is one of the goals of regulating activities in coastal areas through CRZ Notifications, once a conscious relaxation is granted qua a particular activity by issuance of new Notification in supersession of earlier Notification, such relaxation must be allowed to fully operate without reading any restriction in the same.”

The judgment relied on the Top Court's decision in Vanashakti v. Union of India, which underscored balancing developmental needs with environmental protection;

“No doubt that the courts have consistently insisted upon protecting environment and consistently held that the natural resources are held in trust by the present generation for the future generations. However, at the same time, the courts have also consistently taken into consideration the need for developmental activities.”

Reliance was further placed on Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India, Jagannath v. Union of India, Consumer Education & Research Society v. Union of India, Intellectuals Forum, Tirupati v. State of A.P., Tata Housing Development Company Ltd. v. Aalok Jagga and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Uday Education and Welfare Trust.

Dismissing the contention based on public trust doctrine, the court held that earlier representations to maintain the land as a green belt cannot bind MSRDC now that the land is outside CRZ.

Accordingly, the petitions were dismissed, paving the way for MSRDC to undertake development on the reclaimed land, subject to applicable planning laws.

Case Title: Neeta Sawant v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation & Ors.

Date of Judgment: August 26, 2025

Bench: Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne