JNPT denies non-compliance with Bombay HC order for transfer of mangroves to state

In a fresh affidavit filed before the Bombay high court (HC) on June 30, Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT) has denied allegations of non-compliance regarding the transfer of mangrove lands at the port authority’s property in Uran, Raigad to the forest department

In a fresh affidavit filed before the Bombay high court (HC) on June 30, Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT) has denied allegations of non-compliance regarding the transfer of mangrove lands at the port authority’s property in Uran, Raigad to the forest department. On the heels of a 2004 petition filed by the Bombay Environment Action Group (BEAG), the HC, in September 2018, ordered that mangroves on all government land be transferred to the forest department within three months.

HT Image

As per an assessment by the forest department, there are around 1,194 hectares (ha) of mangroves in Uran that need to be handed over to the state for protection and to be notified as reserve forest under the Indian Forest Act, 1927. Until February this year, JNPT’s website contained a declaration that it has 913.6 ha of mangroves on its land in Uran. This section has now been removed, as HT first reported on June 14. Till date, there has been no handover of mangroves from JNPT to the forest department.

Given the long-standing delay, city-based NGO Vanashakti in December 2020 served a contempt notice to JNPT. Subsequently, in January this year, Vanashakti filed a fresh public interest litigation (PIL) to expedite HC’s final judgement from September 2018 which concerns protection for over 3,000 ha of mangroves across the state. The PIL also alleges that there has been wilful destruction and reclamation of mangroves by various authorities, including JNPT, in violation of environmental safeguards.

In response to the petition, a JNPT representative has denied allegations that they “have violated or committed wilful disobedience of the (HC’s) final order and judgement”. This is on the grounds that JNPT were not a party to the original PIL filed by BEAG in 2006.

Experts, however, contested this claim, saying HC’s directions are applicable to all government authorities, including JNPT. They also pointed out that JNPT has been previously penalised by HC-appointed mangrove protection and conservation committee for destroying at least 4,500 mangroves to make way for its container terminal-4 port expansion project.

In their affidavit, JNPT also submitted that the state has not directly approached them seeking transfer of mangrove land. On the contrary, after receiving Vanashakti’s contempt notice in December, JNPT itself wrote to the mangrove cell in January, asking for “details about JNPT’s mangrove vegetation land out of 1194 hectares of Raigad district”. The forest department, on its part, has maintained that they do not have any idea about the extent of mangroves under JNPT’s jurisdiction, bringing the matter to a deadlock which, experts say, has only prolonged the final goal of bringing Uran’s mangroves under legal protection.

The forest department subsequently wrote to JNPT administration in February and May this year, with the subject ‘Transferring Mangrove Forest to Mangrove Cell”. On February 12, Virendra Tiwari, additional principal chief conservator of forests (mangrove cell), had asked the port authority to notify mangrove area under its control under section 4 of the Indian Forest Act “at the earliest”.

Stalin D, director of Vanashakti, criticised both JNPT and the forest department for the long-standing delay in bringing Uran’s mangroves under the purview of the Indian Forest Act. “The forest department is equally responsible for this lapse. While it is incorrect of JNPT to say they have not been approached, it is as much the responsibility of the forest department to have written to them earlier. Both parties have started passing the buck to each other only after contempt notices were sent out.”

HT had reported on June 14 that JNPT has approached the Maharashtra Remote Sensing Application Centre (MRSAC) for demarcation of its mangrove area. “Following demarcation of mangrove area of JNPT through MRSAC after approval, the port trust may handover mangroves land to forest department,” a senior JNPT official had said to HT.

Debi Goenka, a life member of BEAG and second petitioner in the initial PIL which led to the HC’s final judgement, also criticised both JNPT and the state government over inaction.

“It seems neither the mangrove cell nor JNPT is interested in implementing the orders of the HC. It is shocking that both do not know what the area of mangroves within JNPT’s jurisdiction is. JNPT is also clearly aware of the proceedings, as they themselves had filed an application in the HC for permission to destroy 14 ha of mangroves for expansion of the port. Unfortunately, this permission was given to them even though the CRZ clearance obtained by JNPT specifically prohibited the destruction of mangroves. In this era of climate change, it is unfortunate that government agencies are wilfully disobeying the Bombay HC,” Goenka said.

BN Kumar, director of NatConnect Foundation, which has been campaigning to save Uran’s mangroves, said, “JNPT is sitting on roughly 9 lakh mangroves, by the thumb rule of a 1,000 trees per hectare. That is the size of roughly 90 Azad Maidans. Given that they have been fined previously for destruction of mangroves, their dillydallying is extremely concerning. The fear is also that their excuse will also pave the way for other agencies to hold on to their mangrove, which rightfully should be transferred to the forest department immediately.”