Wetland destruction in Navi Mumbai: NGT to hear plea on Thursday

Activists have approached the National Green Tribunal (NGT) over the alleged continued destruction of Panje wetland in Raigad’s Uran taluka

Activists have approached the National Green Tribunal (NGT) over the alleged continued destruction of Panje wetland in Raigad’s Uran taluka. The site, as per the petition filed by activist Nandakumar Pawar, is regarded as the largest migratory waterbird congregation site at Navi Mumbai by the Bombay Natural History Society. The matter has been listed for hearing on April 15.

HT Image

The Panje coastal wetland is a low-lying area of approximately 289 hectares circumscribed by Panje, Phunde, Dongari and Bokadvira villages. It is bordered by mangroves on the west and the east and has mangroves inside the wetland at some locations. Activists have alleged large-scale landfilling of earth over mangroves, and have accused City and Industrial Development Corporation (Cidco) of blocking the flow of seawater to intertidal forests.

While a broader petition is currently being heard on the matter in the Bombay hight court, the petitioners said they have approached NGT for an urgent hearing. The plea made is for official instructions to be given to Cidco for opening up all five of their water inlets and to allow tidal water to flow into Panje. Pawar has also sought directions for the Raigad district collector to ensure that no further impediments are created in the free flow of water to the Panje wetland, either through the blocking of culverts, pumping out of water, reclamation or through other means.

Despite an order issued by environment minister Aaditya Thackeray on March 4 last year in response to a petition by NatConnect Foundation, there have been repeated instances of landfilling reported in the area. The Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) had previously also directed the Raigad collector to ensure all blocks of tidal water flow are removed. MCZMA has also filed an affidavit before HC, clarifying that the area in question falls under Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ)-1, and that due to presence of mangroves no construction can be allowed there.

“Despite these developments, there has been absolutely no change on the ground. It is a matter of great urgency, which is why we approached NGT. It was done at the behest of HC itself,” said Pawar.

“Clause 3(iv) of CRZ notification, 2011, prohibits the reclamation, bunding or disturbing the natural course of sea water and sets out a limited set of exceptions to this. Clause 3(xii) stipulates an absolute prohibition on any kind of construction activity in CRZ-1 except those set out in clause 8 of the notification. A perusal of clause 8 of CRZ notification will bear out that blocking the tidal ingress of water to CRZ areas is not permitted,” stated Pawar’s petition.