JUDGMENT V.G. Bisht, J. - The petitioners in both these Public Interest Litigations (PILs) have raised a common and concerned question as to construction and reclamation activities for the project of cycling and jogging trac underta en inside Powai lake by respondent Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) in violation of provisions of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) and notifed Development Control Regulation for Greater Mumbai 2034 (DCR) and hence they are disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. Interim Application No.716 of 2022 is allowed and stands disposed of. 3. The common facts leading to insitution of these PILs, in brief, are as follows : (a) Petitioners are earnestly concerned about the Powai Lake Wetland and hazardous impact caused by the construction activities for a proposed Cycle Trac over the Water Body, Catchment Area, Crocodile aabitat of the Powai Lake Wetland, carried by the respondentuMCGM by uprooting and cutting the trees, digging and dumping boulders and flling the sand crush and stones etc. (b) According to petitioners, the Powai Lake is a notifed wetland by National Wetland Atlas 2011 and has been included in the unifed scheme - National Plan for Conservation of Aquatic Ecousystems (NPCA), after merging the National Lake Conservation Plan with National Wetland Conservation Program. (c) Petitioners came to now that the respondentuMCGM had reclaimed the Powai Lake Wetland and are carrying out construction activities by uprooting the trees, digging the ground and dumping the stones, crushedusand over the water body, water catchment area, crocodile habitat and ecologically sensitive and fragile wetland of Powai Lake. There are two construction sites, frst being the reclamation water body adjacent to the Renaissance aotel Compound Wall inside the Powai Lake riparian area, besides the Pipeline Road, Powai. The second site is nown as Deer Par , besides the Ambed ar Udyan, Powai. The petitioners allege that site no.1 has been e ploited by the respondentuMCGM since July 2021 and around 100 meters of the area has been constructed over a natural water body. Similarly, the wetland area between site no.1 and site no.2 has been used by crocodiles as a bas ing site for a long time and during night the crocodiles come out of the water and rest there. Similarly, the wetland area between site no.1 and site no.2 has been used by crocodiles as a bas ing site for a long time and during night the crocodiles come out of the water and rest there. The area between site no.1 and site no.2 is the 'zone of infuence' means that part of the catchment area of the wetland or wetland comple , developmental activities induce adverse changes in ecosystem structure and ecosystem services. 4. The petitioners then contend that any ind of reclamation followed by construction over water body, water catchment area / crocodile habitat and Powai Lake Wetland would destroy this pristine and rich shoreline food web, increase siltation and cause loss of native water plants that would be a critical turning point in eutrophication and destruction of the lake. 5. The petitioners have, therefore, fled these PILs to protect, conserve and restore the e tremely vulnerable Powai Lake Wetland from reclamation and ongoing construction activities carried out by the respondents u MCGM and Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. (MTDCL). 6. Reply affidavit has been fled by respondentuMCGM wherein it contends that there is a dearth of community recreation spaces in the eastern suburbs of Greater Mumbai and there are practically no major community open space in this part of the city. Powai Lake, with its 10.2 m of waterfront, ofers an opportunity to create a large community open space for the citizens of Mumbai. Powai Lake, after rejuvenation, has the potential of becoming a major community open space. Moreover, the said wal way will enable MCGM's maintenance Department and staf to have ready access to all portions of the lake front. 7. It is ne t contended that by developing the proposed wal way along the periphery of the Powai Lake, the respondents will create an ecological destination which is accessible to the common citizen / public. The proposed cycle path and wal way closely follows the alignment of the e isting motorable lake front road of IIT Mumbai and thereafter the Renaissance aotel compound wall and pathway. The proposed pathway will be situated substantially in the Natural Area beyond the perimeter of Powai Lake. Only some limited portions fall in areas which are covered by water during the monsoon season and the few months thereafter. 8. The proposed pathway will be situated substantially in the Natural Area beyond the perimeter of Powai Lake. Only some limited portions fall in areas which are covered by water during the monsoon season and the few months thereafter. 8. According to respondentuMCGM in order not to impede the fow of water into the lake as also the fow of lake waters during the monsoon months, the wal way is to be developed using 'Gabion Technology' which is porous and does not prevent the fow of water. 'Gabion Technology' consists of placing PVC coated galvanized iron wire mesh bas ets in place, containing stones of various sizes, without any joinery, f ing or cement mortar. These wire bas ets containing stones of diverse sizes are merely placed on the surface, without there being any foundation, or other means used to f it to the earth. On top of the gabion wall there will be a thin layer of cement board / synthetic composite board and macadam / tar to enable wal ing / cycling. There is no dumping of debris into the lake, nor any reclamation in the lake. 'Gabion Technology' does not involve any construction or reclamation. Gabions also provide refuge for small acquatic life and have the potential of becoming a breeding ground for small and micro acquatic life. Therefore, the respondentu MCGM denies that development of the wal way using 'Gabion Technology' as aforesaid involves any reclamation of any part of the lake, or any construction activity in the vicinity of the lake front. In the light of these facts, the PILs are liable to be dismissed with costs, urges respondentuMCGM. 9. Another reply affidavit of respondentuForest Department i.e. respondent nos.3, 6 and 7 contends that there is also an 'Original Application No.68 of 2021' fled by an NGO, Vanasha ti, which is pending before the National Green Tribunal, West Zone Bench at Pune, raising the identical issues about 'Powai Lake'. Therefore, it is desirable that both matters should be heard and decided by the same judicial forum. The said respondents have suggested various measures for preventing the further pollution of the Powai Lake and forming a team of Wildlife e perts, who can suggest measures for avoiding the damage to the Powai Lake, habitat of crocodiles with a special emphasis on their bas ing and nesting sites. 10. The said respondents have suggested various measures for preventing the further pollution of the Powai Lake and forming a team of Wildlife e perts, who can suggest measures for avoiding the damage to the Powai Lake, habitat of crocodiles with a special emphasis on their bas ing and nesting sites. 10. Another reply affidavit of respondentuMaharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) submits that it has not granted any consent to the alleged construction and the site of the alleged construction was visited by its Field Officer along with official of respondentuMCGM on 27th October 2021 and it was informed by the official of respondentuMCGM that it is a project for natural wal way, bicycle and jogging trac along the periphery of Powai Lake and for rejuvenation and reinvigoration of the Powai Lake. At the time of the visit, about 100 mtrs. wor of gabion (in which GI net and stone used) was completed and remaining wor was in progress. During visit gabion wor was not in operation. 11. According to respondentuMPCB, respondentuMinistry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change (MoEF&CC), Government of India, vide letter 9th August 2021 informed it about alleged construction activities inside the water body of the Powai Lake and this respondent vide letter dated 28th October 2021 forwarded the said complaint to respondentu MCGM as the said activity does not come under its purview. 12. Another reply affidavit of respondents i.e. Maharashtra State, Environment Department and Maharashtra State Wetland Authority contends that till today the said Powai Lake has not been notifed to be a Wetland in accordance with the Notifcation dated 26th September 2017, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, New Delhi. According to them, the State Wetland Authority constituted under the provision of the Rules of 2017 has also designated and formed a Grievance Redresser Committee to loo into the various complaints and grievances made by the general public with regard to the various activities concerning the Wetland within the State. One of the complaints submitted by Mr.Stalin D. i.e. the petitioner in PIL(L) No.5111 of 2022 concerning the very activity of construction of cycle trac on the periphery of the said Powai Lake, is presently being loo ed into by the E pert Committee constituted by the State Wetland Authority. One of the complaints submitted by Mr.Stalin D. i.e. the petitioner in PIL(L) No.5111 of 2022 concerning the very activity of construction of cycle trac on the periphery of the said Powai Lake, is presently being loo ed into by the E pert Committee constituted by the State Wetland Authority. In such circumstances, according to them, the present petitioners be directed to approach State Wetland Authority with all the details as regards the status of the Powai Lake and their grievance regarding construction of cycle trac around the Powai lake. 13. The petitioners, by way of affidavit in rejoinder to the affidavituinureply of respondentuMCGM contends that the respondentuMCGM has devised a theory of using 'Gabion Technology' which is nothing but construction of a road under the garb of 'board wal / wal way / cycle trac which is evidently going to be a wor of permanent construction and the same is also a prohibited activity and cannot be termed as 'wise use'. The claim that the soucalled 'Gabion Technology' is porous and ecoufriendly is incorrect and misleading which is clear from the averments made in paragraph 8(h) of the reply wherein the respondentuMCGM has admitted that 'on the top layer of the gabion wall there will be a thin layer of cement board/synthetic composite board and macadam/tar to enable the wal ing/cycling'. aence, the respondentuMCGM's own claim about the porousness and it being ecoufriendly are selfu contradictory and incorrect. 14. After having noticed the pleadings of the rival parties elaborately, it is now time to consider the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents at length. There are twoufold arguments raised on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioners. First, as part of the project on National Wetland Inventory and Assessment (NWIA), National Wetlands Atlas was prepared by Space Applications Centre, Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) and the same was sponsored by Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India. Powai Lake is, thus, notifed as a wetland in the National Wetland Atlas in the map. Since Union of India is a signatory to 'Ramsar Convention' on Wetlands, thus it is obigated to conserve and wiseuuse of all wetlands within its territory. Powai Lake is, thus, notifed as a wetland in the National Wetland Atlas in the map. Since Union of India is a signatory to 'Ramsar Convention' on Wetlands, thus it is obigated to conserve and wiseuuse of all wetlands within its territory. Second, Government of Maharashtra, through its UDD in consultation with its Director, Town Planning Department under the provisions of the MRTP Act, 1966 notifed DC Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 2034 (DCR). Part VII of DCR provides for Land Use Classifcation and Uses Permitted. Under this Part VII of SubuRegulation 3.3 of Regulation 34 a specifc regulation for Powai and Vihar Lake has been made, which contemplates that in order to prevent erosion of soil and silting in lakes, an e clusive green belt of 100 m shall be provided around the periphery of Vihar and Powai Lake in which no construction whatsoever shall be allowed. If within 100 m from the periphery of Vihar and Powai lake there e ists Municipal/Public road, then bufer of green belt beyond Municipal / Public road may not be insisted. 15. As far as the frst issue of Powai lake being a wetland is concerned, in our view, the respondent namely Member Secretary of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and as also State Wetland Authority, Maharashtra, rightly pointed out that the said Powai Lake has not been notifed to be a wetland in accordance with Notifcation dated 26th September 2017 issued by Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, New Delhi. Clause (3) of the said Notifcation deals with 'Applicability of Rules' which provides that these rules shall apply to the following wetlands or wetlands comple es namely- (a) wetlands categorised as 'wetlands of international importance' under the Ramsar Convention; (b) wetlands as notifed by the Central Government, State Government and Union Territory Administration' 16.Clause 3(b) is very clear and categorically lays emphasis on Notifcation in respect of wetlands. In the case in hand, merely showing that the Powai Lake has been notifed as a wetland in the National Wetlands Atlas in the map will not satisfy the requirement of aforesaid Notifcation dated 26th September 2017. It essentially requires a Notifcation. Powai Lake must and necessarily be notifed to be a wetland in accordance with the Notifcation dated 26th September 2017 issued by Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, New Delhi. It essentially requires a Notifcation. Powai Lake must and necessarily be notifed to be a wetland in accordance with the Notifcation dated 26th September 2017 issued by Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, New Delhi. Admittedly, no such Notifcation e ists as of now notifying the Powai Lake to be a wetland. Therefore, as far as the frst issue is concerned, we do not fnd merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 17. We have also gone through Part VII of DCR 2034 which provides for 'Land Use Classifcation and Uses Permitted'. Under Part VII of SubuRegulation 3.3 of Regulation 34, a specifc regulation for Powai and Vihar Lakes has been made which is as follows : '(VII) Periphery of Vihar and Pawai Lake : In order to prevent erosion of soil and silting in lakes, an e clusive green belt of 100 m shall be provided around the periphery of Vihar and Pawai Lake, in which no construction whatsoever shall be allowed. If within 100 m from the periphery of Vihar and Pawai Lake there e ists Municipal / Public Road, then bufer of green belt beyond Municipal /Public Road may not be insisted.' 18. A bare reading of the above Regulation would show that an e clusive green belt of 100 m would be provided around the periphery of Vihar and Powai Lakes and in order to prevent erosion of soil and silting in lakes, no construction activity of whatsoever nature shall be allowed. Apparently, the activity of the respondentuMCGM is in the teeth of this Regulation. 19. As against above, Mr. Chinoy, the learned senior counsel for respondentuMCGM has vehemently submitted that the jogging and cycling trac ucumuwal way will be developed by using 'Gabion Technology' and such technology will not require construction or reclamation of the lake and that it will not impede the fow of water. The learned senior counsel has strenuously laid emphasis on the word 'construction' and according to the learned senior counsel, since the 'Gabion Technology' does not involve the use of cement or mortar, by no stretch of imagination, the technology so used would amount to construction activity. 20. In our studied view, this is the core issue and the principle point on which the parties are at issue. 20. In our studied view, this is the core issue and the principle point on which the parties are at issue. It will be unwise to read too much into submission of the learned senior counsel, the same being essentially a self serving e planation. 21. Of major concern is the fact that the word 'construction' is nowhere defned in DCR 2034. In absence thereof, a plain and natural meaning will have to be assigned. The O ford English Reference Dictionary, Edition 1995 defnes 'construct' and means ma e by ftting parts together, build, form. Similarly, in Concise O ford Dictionary, Twelfth Edition, 2011, 'construct' means build or erect. Thus, simply stating, construction is the act to build or erect. 22. Apart from pleadings, we have also carefully glanced over the photographs of the site where the jogging and cycling trac ucumuwal way is being developed by using 'Gabion Technology'. We may note here with alacrity that respondentuMCGM has not fled any material on record to satisfy us that 'Gabion Technology' is sufficiently proven technology or is bac ed and supported by scientifc study about its utility sans failures. The petitioners [in PIL(L) No.5111 of 2022] have enumerated various failures of 'Gabion Technology' in paragraphs 34, 35 and 36. There is no response on that count from respondentuMCGM. 23. Although the acclaimed project underta en by respondentuMCGM suggests 'rejuvenation and reinvigoration' of the physical and natural environment of Powai Lake, Mumbai, but the obtaining situation as discernible and decipherable from photographs, which is not disputed, shows land flling / reclamation, metallic frames raised on water body for dumping stones and laying of tar road along with peripheral area of the lake which cannot by any stretch of imagination be termed or construed 'rejuvenation and reinvigoration' of the physical and natural environment of Powai Lake. Common sense would prompt a disturbing conclusion that construction of cycle trac or any slightest disturbance to the otherwise serene water body of the surrounding area would have farureaching efects on the ecology and acquatic life of the lake, which already has e cessive silting, sewage ingress and e tended hyacinth growth leading to eutrophication of the lake water. Needless to say, the respondentuMCGM in the present case has induced itself to underta e the reclamation under the garb of use of 'Gabion Technology'. Needless to say, the respondentuMCGM in the present case has induced itself to underta e the reclamation under the garb of use of 'Gabion Technology'. To show and submit that the project is being carried out to create a community access to the lake front and to enable access to the lake front for maintenance of lake, its periphery and for preservation of erosion, siltation and encroachment, is a bit hard to swallow, considering the material on record. 24. Viewed above and for the reasons stated aforesaid, these two PILs deserve to be allowed. We, therefore, pass the following order : ORDER 1) PIL (L) Nos.23928 of 2021 and 5111 of 2022 are allowed as under : (a) In view of law as it stands, It is declared that the wor of cycling and jogging trac being carried out by respondentuMCGM inside the boundaries and its catchment area of the Powai Lake is illegal and respondentuMCGM is restrained from carrying out any reclamation or construction for the project of cycling and jogging trac or for any other project inside Powai Lake, Mumbai and its catchment area. (b) RespondentuMCGM is hereby directed to immediately remove all construction carried out in furtherance of the cycling and jogging trac inside the Powai Lake and its catchment area and restore all reclaimed sites to its original position. 2) Both PILs stand disposed of accordingly