the bombay high court recently upheld the state governments directives to prohibit construction on hilltops and hillslopes and to adhere to a 100 feet nodevelopment buffer zone around the hillsa bench of justices s c dharmadhikari and anuja prabhudesai said the state has exercised its power not to defeat the purpose of a law that regulates construction and development but to ensure that civic and state bodies take measures to preserve ecology and prevent environmental damage accidents resulting in loss of human life and propertythe high court dismissed a clutch of petitions filed by members of housing societies and builders from mumbai and pune challenging two orders of the national green tribunal in pune and the november 2017 hilltop policythe bench found no merit in the submissions as it amounted to illegally altering the development plans for these cities and held that the state cannot be faultedthe state had on november 14 last year using its powers under maharashtra regional town planning act a law meant to regulate real estate development directed that no development is permissible on hilltops and slopes having depth of less than 15km and that an area of 100ft surrounding or abutting the hills should not be used for construction but declared nonbuildablethe petitioners harshada cooperative housing society in kothrud with many senior citizens looking for urgent redevelopment of their 30yearold building developers d b realty suyog developers and shah promoters and developers along with practising engineers architects and town planners association india through their counsels milind sathe girish godbole saket mone birendra saraf and rutuja patil contended that both the ngt orders and the states circular were legally flawedthe state lacks power under mrtp to change the dp without hearing all stakeholders they argued the hc however found no evidence of abuse of power by the state or any subversion it agreed with government lawyers bv samant jyoti chavan and geeta shastri that its directive which essentially also clarifies the hill gradient was in the larger public interestsathe and saraf argued that the power under mrtp to issue directives does not extend to changing the development control regulations which the supreme court has held in three separate rulingsthe states decision merely supplements what the civic bodies are empowered to do to regulate construction based on the principles of sustainable development through a constitutional duty to protect environment the hc held in its august 6 rulingwhile permitting development the mandate of article 21 right to life of the constitution cannot be ignored the hc saidthe court stated conservation of ecology and environment and preventing damage to them are but features of every development planit added preservation of natural scenery and surroundings and conservation of hills is thus implicit equally ecological imbalance and damage can be prevented by ensuring that there is no breaking or cutting of hills nor undertaking of such activity in or around the same by which there would be landslides mudslides and rubble and debris can then fall from hilltops straight on roads