Safiya Malik

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Division Bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Arif S. Doctor, voicing alarm over the lack of civic infrastructure in Kulgaon-Badlapur, ordered immediate steps to stop untreated sewage from a housing project contaminating farmland and the Ulhas river. The Court directed the constitution of an Improvement Committee to suggest urban planning reforms, and held that issuing occupation certificates without sewerage facilities breached the Water Act, 1974, Environment Protection Act, 1986, and town planning norms, stressing that such failures erode citizens’ constitutional right to a clean and healthy environment.

The proceedings before the Bombay High Court arose from a petition filed by an agriculturist, who complained of nuisance caused to his land in Kulgaon-Badlapur, Thane District, due to untreated sewage discharged from a residential project known as “Skyline Building” developed by A Plus Lifespace. The petitioner stated that despite repeated complaints to the Chief Officer of the Kulgaon-Badlapur Municipal Council (KBMC), no corrective measures were taken, resulting in sewage overflow on his agricultural land and into the Ulhas river.

Also Read: Supreme Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Advocate, Imposes ₹50,000 Cost on Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa

The petitioner contended that the KBMC had permitted the developer to construct and occupy the project without ensuring proper drainage or sewerage connections. He alleged that occupation certificates were granted even though the housing complex lacked a functioning sewage treatment plant (STP). He further asserted that this amounted to violation of statutory duties under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and the Environment Protection Act, 1986.

The State of Maharashtra and KBMC, appearing as respondents, argued that planning and approvals had been granted in accordance with law. The municipal council contended that infrastructure facilities were being gradually developed and that any sewage issues were being addressed. The developer, respondent no. 5, maintained that it had complied with sanctioned plans and that the responsibility for sewerage lines lay with the municipal authorities.

Evidence before the Court included site reports and photographs submitted by the petitioner, showing stagnation of untreated sewage around buildings and discharge into nearby agricultural land. The matter brought into focus the lack of a proper sewerage system, operational STPs, and other civic amenities such as roads, playgrounds, and gardens in the rapidly urbanizing Kulgaon-Badlapur region.

The statutory provisions discussed in detail included Section 24 of the Water Act, prohibiting discharge of polluting matter into streams, wells, or land, and Section 25 imposing restrictions on new outlets without prior consent of the Pollution Control Board. Constitutional provisions invoked included Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty), Article 48A (State’s duty to protect the environment), and Article 51A(g) (citizen’s duty to protect natural environment).

The Court observed: “In contemporary times, when expertise in town planning, abundance of technology in construction of buildings, scientific methods in the development of civic facilities, by adherence to the highest norms of preserving ecology and environment are available, would it be an acceptable approach for any planning authority, howsoever small or big, to discard or overlook the essentials of such civic planning in granting development permissions and/or in planning new towns or new developments.”

It recorded that “proposals for high rise constructions… while basic infrastructure facilities like a sewerage system, operational STP, roads, pavements, footpaths, playgrounds, gardens, children’s parks etc. are lacking, would amount to nothing less than a high degree of urban disorder.” The Court noted that this had resulted in “irreparable and chaotic situations in terms of planning, bringing innumerable public woes including serious health concerns, like typhoid, malaria, dengue.”

The Bench stated that “for the health of the citizens not being adversely affected, it is the duty of the planning authority to maintain proper sanitation and cleanliness in the municipal areas.” It further recorded that “buildings are seen to be surrounded by pool of dirt, filth and sewage water. This is certainly not what is expected from an urban planning body.”

Quoting Article 21, the Court observed: “The right to life as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India would take within its purview adherence and compliance of the other provisions of the Constitution, which are intended to protect ecology and environment.”

The Court noted the relevance of statutory provisions, stating: “The provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 are of utmost significance… Section 24 provides for a prohibition on use of stream or well for disposal of polluting matter… Section 25 provides for restrictions on new outlets and new discharges.”

It also held: “We have no hesitation in holding that the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle are part of the environmental law of the country.”

The Bench directed as follows: “We direct setting up of an ‘Improvement Committee for Kulgaon‑Badlapur Municipal Area’ to make suggestions and guidance for an appropriate urban development of the Kulgaon‑Badlapur Municipal area within two weeks from today.”

The Bench prescribed the composition of the Improvement Committee to consist of: “An expert in town planning nominated by the Chairman/Managing Director of CIDCO; one Town Planning Expert nominated by the Director, Town Planning, Government of Maharashtra; Additional Collector, Thane; Chief Executive Officer of Kulgaon‑Badlapur Municipal Council; a representative/expert nominated by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB); [and an] eminent Social Worker to be nominated by Kulgaon‑Badlapur Municipal Council.”

The Court mandated the functions of the Committee, directing that it be “tasked with making suggestions for ideal town planning measures to be implemented for identification of the town planning issues/problems including which are highlighted in the Reports of the Collector and the Expert and as extensively discussed hereinabove and for implementation of all such measures.”

The Committee was further directed to “prepare a blue print of ‘immediate measures’ to be taken in the larger public interest and the ‘long term measures’, so that a robust and proper town planning is achieved for the Kulgaon Badlapur Municipal area, so as to make it a Model Town, on the lines of a well planned city like Navi Mumbai and the other well planned towns in the State of Maharashtra.” The Bench kept “open all the avenues of such town planning, to be decided by the Committee with appropriate assistance from the Government of Maharashtra to be suggested to the KBMC and monitor its implementation.”

Also Read: Bombay High Court | Magistrate’s Preliminary Order Under Section 145 CrPC Not Required When Inquiry Is Directed by High Court or Supreme Court

“We direct respondent No.5 to take immediate measures to prevent sewage being drained onto the petitioner’s land, as also by undertaking appropriate filling of the land so as to bring it to the level of the adjoining plot of the society. This be complied within a period of six weeks from today. The compensation amount of Rs. 10 Lakhs be paid by respondent no.5 to the petitioner within two weeks from today.”

The Bench stated, in parting observations, that civic amenities such as sewer lines, functional sewage treatment plants, and specified areas for municipal solid waste are essential requirements of both developed and developing towns, and recorded that disharmony, inappropriate planning, and deficient functioning of such facilities severely affect fundamental rights of citizens.

“We accordingly dispose of this petition with cost of Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the KBMC to the petitioner.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Avinash Fatangare with Ms. Archana Shelar, Advocates
For the Respondents: Ms. M. P. Thakur, AGP for the State; Mr. Dinesh Adsule, Advocate; Mr. Sumedh S. Modak i/b Mr. Vijay Killedar, Advocates

Case Title: Yashwant Anna Bhoir v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC‑AS:39196‑DB

Case Number: Writ Petition No. 7404 of 2024

Bench: Justice G. S. Kulkarni; Justice Arif S. Doctor