National Green Tribunal Case - Environment Protection

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 3, Cited by 0 ] ### National Green Tribunal

National Environment Care Foundation vs Mangalore Smart City Ltd on 24 March, 2026

Item No.3 (i) to (iii):-

           BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
                SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

              Tuesday, the 24th day of March 2026.

                [Through Physical Hearing (Hybrid Option)]

           Original Application No. 52 of 2024 (SZ)&
                   I.A. No.22 of 2024 (SZ) &
                     I.A. No.14 of 2025(SZ)

                                    WITH

           Original Application No. 154 of 2024 (SZ)
                       [Earlier O.A. No.191 of 2024 (PB)]

                                    WITH

           Original Application No. 195 of 2024 (SZ)
                       [Earlier O.A. No.387 of 2024 (PB)]

IN THE MATTER OF:

       O.A. No.52/2024 (SZ):

        National Environment Care Foundation
        Through the General Secretary
        Shashidar Shetty
        Shree Shastha Building
        Ashoknagar, Mangalore - 575 006,
        Dakshin Kannada District, Karnataka.
                                                             ...Applicant(s)
                                        Versus

    1) Mangalore Smart City Limited
       Through the Managing Director
       2nd Floor, City Corporation
       M.G. Road, Lalbhagh,
       Mangaluru - 575 003.

    2) Office of Regional Director (Environment) Mangalore
       Through the Regional Director
       Department of Forest Environment & Ecology,
       3rd Floor, MUDA Building, Urwastore,
       Mangalore - 6.

    3) Karnataka State Coastal Zone Management Authority
       Through the Member Secretary
       Room No.710, 7th Floor, 4th Gate,
       M.S building, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar veedhi,
       Bengaluru - 560 001.

    4) Department of Public Works, Ports &
       Inland Water Transport
       Government of Karnataka
       Through the Additional Chief Secretary
       Room No.28, Vikas Soudha,
       Bangalore - 560 001.

                                                                 Page 1 of 13

5) State of Karnataka
C/o Forest, Ecology and Environment Department
Through the Additional Chief Secretary
Room No.448, 4th Floor, Gate No.2,
M.S Building, Bangalore - 560 001.

6) Union of India
C/o Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change
Through the Secretary,
Indira Paryavaran Bhawan,
Jorbagh Road, New Delhi - 110 003.

7) National Centre for Coastal Research (NCCR)
Rep. by its Director,
NIOT Campus, Velacherry,
Tambaram Main Road,
Palliakaranai, Chennai - 600 100.

 (R7 - Suo Motu impleaded as per Order dt.21.10.2024)

                                                     ...Respondent(s)
                             WITH

O.A. No.154/2024 (SZ):

Suo Motu matter in respect of news item
appearing in Manglorean dated 26.01.2024
titled "Netravati Waterfront 'Promenade'
Project is hurting lives of common people
- Stakeholders".

                           And

1) Chairman
National Coastal Zone Management Authority,
4th Floor, Aranya Bhavan, Malleshwaram,
Bangalore - 560 001.

2) Principal Secretary
Forest, Environment & Ecology Department,
Government of Karnataka,
Secretariat, Room No.709, 7th Floor,
Gate No.4, M.S. Building,
Bangalore - 560 001.

3) Deputy Commissioner & District Magistrate
Mangaluru District,
Dakshina Kannada
Mangalore - 575 001.

4) Deputy Director General of Forests (C)
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change,
Integrated Regional Office, Kendriya Sadan,
4th Floor, E&F Wings, 17th Main Road,
Koramangala II Block,
Bangalore (Mangalore) - 560 034.

5) Managing Director
Mangaluru Smart City Limited,
2nd Floor, City Corporation, MG Rd,
Lalbagh, Mangaluru, Karnataka - 575 003.

                                                           Page 2 of 13

6) National Centre for Coastal Research (NCCR)
Represented by its Director,
NIOT Campus, Velachery - Tambaram Main Road,
Pallikaranai, Chennai - 600 100.

(R6 - Suo Motu impleaded as per Order dt.21.10.2024)

                                                      ...Respondent(s)
                            WITH

O.A. No.195/2024 (SZ):

Suo Motu matter in respect of news item
appearing in The Hindu dated 20.10.2023
titled "Linking Mangalureans to their
rivers".

                          And

1. Central Pollution Control Board (CPC B)
   Through its Member Secretary,
   'Parivesh Bhawan', East Arjun Nagar,
   Delhi - 110 032.

2. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board
   Through its Member Secretary,
   Parisara Bhavan, 49, 4th & 5th Floor,
   Church Street, Bangalore - 560 001.

3. Mangaluru Smart City Limited
   Through its Chairman,
   2nd Floor, City Corporation M.G. Road,
   Lalbhagh, Mangaluru - 575 003.

4. National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management
   Through its Director,
   Anna University Campus,
   Chennai - 600 025, Tamil Nadu.

5. National Coastal Zone Management Authority
   Through its Chairman,
   Anna University Campus,
   Chennai - 600 025, Tamil Nadu.

6. The Deputy Commissioner & District Magistrate
   Mangaluru,
   Dakshina Kannada,
   Mangalore - 575 001.

7. National Centre for Coastal Research (NCCR)
   Rep. by its Director,
   NIOT Campus,
   Velacherry- Tambaram Main Road,
   Pallikaranai, Chennai - 600 100.
   (R7 - Suo Motu impleaded as per Order dt.21.10.2024)

                                                     ...Respondent(s)
   
                                                           Page 3 of 13
   

   O.A. No.52/2024 (SZ):-
   For Applicant(s): Mr. Ritwick Dutta &
   Mr. G. Stanly Hebzon Singh.

   For Respondent(s): Mr. Harish Jayakumar for R1.
   Mr. Rajat Jonathan Shaw represented
   Mr. Darpan K.M. for R2, R4 & R5.
   Mr. H.K. Vasanth for R3.
   Mr. T. Ragavan for R6.
   Mr. S. Janarthanam for R7.

   O.A. No.154/2024 (SZ):-
   For Applicant(s): Suo Motu.

   For Respondent(s): Mr. Rajat Jonathan Shaw represented
   Mr. Darpan K.M. for R2 to R4.
   Mr. Harish Jayakumar for R5.
   Mr. S. Janarthanam for R6.

   O.A. No.195/2024 (SZ):-
   For Applicant(s): Suo Motu.

   For Respondent(s): Mr. R. Thirunavukarasu for R1.
   Mr. Devraj Ashok for R2.
   Mr. Harish Jayakumar for R3.
   Mr. Rajat Jonathan Shaw represented
   Mr. Darpan K.M. for R6.
   Mr. S. Janarthanam for R4 & R7.

   Judgment Reserved on: 11th December, 2025.

CORAM:

HON'BLE Smt. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

HON'BLE Dr. PRASHANT GARGAVA, EXPERT MEMBER

                        COMMON JUDGMENT Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member

1) The Principal Bench of this Tribunal, based on a news
item published in The Mangalorean dated 26.01.2024 titled
"Netravati Waterfront 'Promenade' Project is hurting lives
of common people - Stakeholders", suo motu registered the
matter as Original Application No.191 of 2024 (PB). Subsequently,
the matter was transferred to this Bench on the basis of territorial
jurisdiction and was renumbered as Original Application No.154 of
2024 (SZ).

Page 4 of 13 2) In the news item, it is reported that the Netravati
Waterfront Promenade Project in Mangaluru is affecting the local
boatyard owners, fishnet makers and workers, who face eviction
from long-used riverbank land, threatening their livelihoods.

3) Similarly, based on another news item reported in The
Hindu dated 20.10.2023 titled "Linking Mangalureans to their
rivers", the matter was suo motu registered as Original
Application No.387 of 2024 (PB) and renumbered here, after
transfer to this Bench, as Original Application No.195 of 2024(SZ).

4) The above news item also refers to the same issue;
however, on a different note, stating that the Phalguni River is
affected due to poor access, lack of visitor-friendly infrastructure
and dominance of industrial activities along the banks.

5) The other Original Application No.52 of 2024 (SZ) is
filed by the National Environment Care Foundation, alleging
damage caused by the Mangaluru Smart City Limited (MSCL) for
non-compliance of conditions in the No Objection Certificate
(NOC)/Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Clearance dated
07.10.2022 granted by the Karnataka State Coastal Zone
Management Authority (KSCZMA).

6) The suo motu cognizance was taken based on two
issues:

Firstly, the operation of a bulldozer within the
Ecologically Sensitive River banks in the area, known for the
presence of mangroves and trees, in violation of CRZ
Notification, involving unauthorized dumping of some
construction debris into the Netravati River at Mulihithlu to
acquire 9 meters land for the project. The applicant in O.A.
No.52 of 2024 (SZ) also had alleged that approximately 30
and more mangroves and significant trees are no longer
present in the area.

Secondly, the matter deals with the order of vacating
port land for the execution of the promenade project issued
to the boatyard owners and fishnet producers who had taken
the land between the Netravati Railway Bridge and Bolar Sea
Face on lease.
Page 5 of 13
7) It also stated that the stretch of the river waterfront
is not suitable for such a recreational project, where during heavy
monsoon, water overflows into banks and takes back soil along
with it, which is dangerous and life-threatening to people. Due to
the adverse impact of the project, the boat-building yards and
fishnet-making establishments, which have obtained financial
loans from the financial institutions, are facing the possibility of
closure due to the construction of a wall along the riverside.

8) The Principal Bench of this Tribunal also had
constituted a Joint Committee comprising of (i) the Member
Secretary, Central Pollution Control Board (CPC B); (ii) Regional
Office, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change
(MoEF&CC); (iii) District Magistrate, Dakshina Kannada,
Mangalore; and (iv) the Director, National Centre for Coastal
Research (NCCR) to visit the site, ascertain the factual position
and the extent of violation of environmental norms in execution of
the project.

9) The applicant in Original Application No.52 of 2024
(SZ) has also raised several grounds challenging the Mangaluru
Smart City Project. It is stated that the Project Proponent had
submitted before the District Coastal Zone Management Authority
that structures will be avoided with the maximum possible extent
while constructing the walking track and cycle track. However, the
KSCZMA decided to issue the clearance to the Project Proponent
with stricter condition on the use of concrete to state that no
permanent structure/concrete structure should be constructed.
So, when this condition still stands and no exemption was granted
for construction so far as the landward side of the building is
concerned, the same is violated by the Project Proponent.

10) It is also alleged that excavation was carried out to a
depth of approximately 1 meter from the riverbank towards the
land, and the excavated area was filled with black stone, crusher
powder, and cement for the construction of the promenade
revetment.

Page 6 of 13 11) The next aspect is regarding the jungle cleaning and
levelling has been done in a few places and stone pitching work is
also being done. In the absence of any permission or modification
of the CRZ Clearance conditions, the Project Proponent
constructed a stormwater drain made of concrete.

12) The other allegations include the construction of a wall
in the CRZ-IB area, the construction of a stormwater drain with
concrete, land filling outside the pre-existing revetment and the
construction of a wall over the existing revetment, cutting of
mangroves, etc.

13) Since all three applications relate to the same project
and concern the alleged violations by the Project Proponent,
namely Mangaluru Smart City Project Limited, they are tagged
together and taken up for final disposal.

14) The Mangalore Smart City Limited, the Project
Proponent, is a Special Purpose Vehicle formed to actualize the
Smart City Mission. The Waterfront Promenade Project being
developed is 2.1 Km long stretch from Netravati Bridge to Bolar
Sea Face. The said promenade stretch will also have a biodiversity
park, open-air theatre (OAT) plaza, a boat-building yard, ticketing
counters, shops/cafe area, toilets, cycle track, pedestrian
pathway, flea/weekly markets, hawkers plaza, Bolar cultural
market, rain shelters, outdoor gym, pet park, pet store, etc. Since
the project falls within the area extending from the High Tide Line
up to 500 meters inland, the Project Proponent applied for CRZ
Clearance. The KSCZMA granted NOC/CRZ Clearance to the
Project Proponent on 07.10.2022.

15) In light of the above pleadings, it is necessary to
ascertain whether there are any violations as alleged either
in O.A. No.52 of 2024 (SZ) or in the news items based on
which O.A. Nos.154 and 195 of 2024 (SZ) were suo motu
registered.

16) The Joint Committee, which was specifically directed
to inspect the site and ascertain the factual position, had
submitted the report dated 20.06.2024, based on the Page 7 of 13 inspection dated 11.06.2024. On the date of inspection, no active
work or dumping of debris was found and the earlier dumped
debris was cleared and reused for back filling. The JCB use was
limited to initial landward stages and on 01.01.2024, the Forest
Department's census recorded 103 trees in the project area. The
Project Proponent constructed a 42-meter bird watching area in
CRZ - I near the railway bridge by dumping material contrary to
the approved clearance.

17) To the said allegation, the Project Proponent has
stated that it was mistakenly done and it is being removed by
them. The retaining wall constructed in the CRZ - IB area is also
dismantled and removed.

18) In the remaining stretches, the new retaining wall is
constructed on the CRZ - II area and towards the landward side.
The Joint Committee also reported that the Project Proponent had
cleared all the debris dumped in the river and utilized for back
filling. The same is reiterated by the Deputy Commissioner in its
report stating that the Project Proponent had increased the height
of the existing old boulder revetment by 600 meters above the
High Flood Level (HFL) as per the EIA report. The Deputy
Commissioner has stated that the retaining wall above the old
structure is intended to prevent erosion, stabilize the bank and
protect the surrounding environment. The said structure would
help to manage the water flow and reduce the risk of flooding,
contributing to long-term stability.

Mangroves Status:

19) The applications focused on the widespread
destruction of mangroves and the irreversible ecological damage
to the Netravati River Bank. It is found that only sporadic
mangroves are in a few patches near the project. The approved
CZMP and local CRZ Map prepared by the Institute of Remote
Sensing, Anna University, before the start of the project, confirm
that no large mangrove patches are near the project site and no
significant mangrove damage was observed during the physical
inspection.
Page 8 of 13
20) The Project Proponent also asserted that the
allegations were without reference to any pre-existing baseline
study, scientific enumeration or contemporaneous evidence
establishing the presence of mangroves at the project site prior to
the commencement of the work. The historical satellite imagery
only showed the loss of bushes/grass due to the project; stone
masonry revetment was built over the old structure to
accommodate landward filling.

21) In this regard, the Joint Committee has reported that
the entire list of trees that are all along the project site is
numbered and recorded. There are no mangroves present in the
list. The finding of the Joint Committee is that the mangroves are
present in some patches, but nothing to warrant that there existed
large-scale patches of mangrove which were allegedly destroyed.
Therefore, the allegation of widespread destruction is not
supported by baseline data, comparative analysis or scientific
evidence.

22) The KSCZMA has stated that the toilet blocks are
being constructed on the landward side of the old structures,
subject to the condition that no sewage is discharged into the
nearby water body. As the project is currently under construction
and the toilet blocks are not yet operational, there is, at present,
no discharge of sewage into the water body.

Solid Waste Management:

23) Regarding the dumping of solid waste into the
waterbody and scientific disposal of the waste, the KSCZMA has
reported that near the premises of the Udupi District Fish
Marketing Association, a concrete stormwater drain has been
constructed. Additionally, the existing open stormwater drain has
been converted into a fully covered drain using concrete.

24) Regarding the operation of heavy machinery like a
bulldozer within the ecologically sensitive river banks of the river
Netravati, it is found that an old dilapidated retaining wall is at
various locations and the construction of a retaining wall is
underway along the drain to the west. In this regard, the KSCZMA Page 9 of 13 has reported that the Project Proponent has given an undertaking
to remove all the construction debris, which was mistakenly
stored.

25) The applicant in O.A. No.52 of 2024 (SZ) had filed his
objection to the Joint Committee report. It is alleged that the
mangroves have been damaged, trees were removed and soil in
the intertidal area was dumped. However, the Joint Committee
had not recorded any of these observations based on the specific
allegations made by the applicant.

26) In this regard, the report of the Deputy Commissioner
dated 19.11.2024 assumes importance, which states that the
project is falling within the CRZ - II area and there were only a
few sporadic mangroves in a few patches near to the project area.
No large patches of mangroves attract the CRZ requirement. No
significant damages were noted with reference to mangroves
during physical observation. The EIA Study has been conducted
and local level CRZ Map has been prepared. In both the reports,
it is mentioned that there is no mangrove within the vicinity of the
project site. The Deputy Commissioner also reported that no
significant damage was noted with respect to mangroves during
the physical observation.

27) From the reports of the Joint Committee, the KSCZMA
and the Deputy Commissioner, it can be inferred that the
authorities have consistently recorded that works in the rivers are
located on the landward side of the HTL within the CRZ - II area,
subject to limited instances involving retaining structures.

28) The learned counsel appearing for the applicant in
O.A. No.52 of 2024 (SZ) specifically pointed out that the Project
Proponent had admitted that the work in CRZ - IB was done by
the contractor by mistake to store the material.

29) The learned counsel appearing for the Project
Proponent (MSCL) would submit that, as stated in the EIA Report,
the environmental parameters contemplate the minimum use of
concrete along with locally available stones such as laterite,
karkalla granite, brick pitching, which would be utilized for Page 10 of 13 walkways. It is also demonstrated that the structures are firstly
constructed in the stable CRZ - II area, which are beyond 10-
meters threshold of the HTL.

30) The learned counsel appearing for the Project
Proponent also states that being the Government Special Purpose
Vehicle, it is bound by the Engineering and Building Codes,
governing environment-friendly construction and also taking into
the account the terrain topography and weather of the city of
Mangaluru. Thus, it is stated that the usage of the concrete is only
at the foundation level to ensure the structural integrity and
nothing more. The rest of the materials are only temporary
structures using steel beams and other durable material in line
with the Building Codes.

31) The Karnataka SCZMA, while granting NOC to the
project on 07.10.2022, has specifically noted that "The proposed
area falls in CRZ - II. All the structures like toilet blocks, buggy
shed, food kiosks, facility management office, pavilion ticket
counters, outdoor play and equipments will be constructed on
the landward side of existing building". Further, in its revised
alignment, the Project Proponent has stated that the proposed site
belonged to the Port & Inland Waterways Department, which has
allotted land on lease basis to different users like tile factory, boat
building, etc. The lease periods have since expired, but the
structures continue to exist and are now considered as
encroachments. The project focuses on evicting those
encroachments, reclaiming the land and converting it for public
utility purposes. Thus, the MSCL submitted that it complied with
the CRZ conditions by using alternative materials and bricks to
minimise the concrete usage, as mentioned in the CRZ Clearance
dated 07.10.2022, which says "concrete structure will be avoided
to the maximum possible extent while constructing the walking
track and cycle track".

32) The learned counsel for the Applicant in O.A. No.52 of
2024 (SZ) referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India in (2013) 8 SCC 760 - Vaamika Island (Green
Lagoon Resort) vs. Union of India & Ors., a landmark case
concerning CRZ violations in Kerala. In that case, the Project Page 11 of 13 Proponent, Kapico Kerala Resorts Private Limited, constructed a
luxury resort on an island classified as CRZ - I/IV, where
construction is prohibited. The Hon'ble Supreme Court reinforced
the principle that ecologically sensitive areas must be protected
from commercial development, irrespective of potential economic
benefits.

33) The same principle was reiterated in (2020) 3 SCC
18 - Kapico Kerala Resort Private Limited vs. State of
Kerala & Ors., where a luxury resort was built in a Critically
Vulnerable Coastal Area (CVCA), violating the CRZ Notification,
1991, by encroaching upon the Vembanad Lake and adversely
affecting local fishing livelihoods. However, in this case, even the
Karnataka SCZMA clearance permitted construction only on the
landward side of the existing building and prohibited any
permanent structures.

34) The learned counsel also referred to (2004) 3 SCC
445 - Piedade Filomena Gonsalves vs. State of Goa & Ors.,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that unauthorized
constructions in violation of the CRZ Notification cannot be
condoned and emphasized that the Coastal Zone Management
Plan (CZMP) of an area must be strictly followed.

35) The Project Proponent had also violated the conditions
by dumping waste, which, though stated to have occurred by
mistake, was subsequently removed. The Project Proponent ought
to have been aware that the project area falls within both
prohibited and permitted coastal zones. Hence, all the proposed
structures such as the toilet block, food kiosk, and ticket counter
are directed to be aligned on the landward side of the old structure
constructed prior to 1991.

36) In view of the foregoing, the Project Proponent
(MSCL) is directed to strictly adhere to the CRZ Notification, 2011,
the conditions imposed in the CRZ Clearance, and all other
applicable statutory provisions, particularly as the project is
already under the radar of not only this Tribunal but also
environmental activists. It would, therefore, be appropriate for the
Project Proponent (MSCL) to strictly comply with the applicable Page 12 of 13 rules, regulations and imposed conditions to ensure the seamless
execution of the project.

37) With the above directions, the Original
Applications [O.A. Nos.52, 154 and 195 of 2024 (SZ)] are
disposed of accordingly.

38) The pending interlocutory applications [I.A. No.22 of
2024 (SZ) & I.A. No.14 of 2025(SZ)] are also closed.

Sd/-

Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM

                                               Sd/-

Dr. Prashant Gargava, EM

                                                    Internet - Yes/No

                                       All India NGT Reporter - Yes/No

O.A. No.52/2024 (SZ) &
I.A. No.22/2024 (SZ) &
I.A. No.14/2025(SZ)
O.A. No.154/2024 (SZ) &
O.A. No.195/2024 (SZ)
24th March, 2026. Mn.

Page 13 of 13