ORDER : Leave granted. 2. These appeals partly impugn the judgment dated 17.09.2018 passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 87 of 2006, titled "Bombay Environmental Action Group and another v. The State of Maharashtra and others" and connected matters. The appellants are (i) Malvani Prabodhan Sahakari Grihanirman Sanstha Maryadit [Petitioner in W.P. No. 176 of 2015]; (ii) Malvani Anand Deep Sahakari Grihanirman Sanstha Maryadit [Petitioner in W.P. No. 180 of 2015]; (iii) Malvani Matoshri Sahakari Grihanirman Sanstha Maryadit [Petitioner in W.P. No. 187 of 2015]; (iv) Malvani Sagar Sahakari Grihanirman Sabha Maryadit [Petitioner in W.P. No. 188 of 2015]; (v) Malvani Tiranga Sahakari Grihanirman Sanstha (Niyojit) [Petitioner in W.P. No. 190 of 2015]; (vi) Malvani Sahara Sahakari Grihanirman Sanstha (Niyojit) [Petitioner in W.P. No. 249 of 2015]; (vii) Malvani Laxminarayan Sahakari Grihanirman Sanstha (Maryadit) [Petitioner in W.P. No. 251 of 2015]; (viii) Dinshow Trapinex Builders Pvt. Ltd. [CHSW No. 169 of 2015]; and (ix) Blue Star Realtors Pvt. Ltd.[ CHSW No. 172 of 2007] 3. The appellants had earlier preferred before the High Court of Bombay either writ petitions, i.e., Writ Petition Nos. 176 of 2015, 180 of 2015, 187 of 2015, 188 of 2015, 190 of 2015, 249 of 2015, 251 of 2015, or Chamber Summons Nos. 169 of 2015 & 172 of 2007, which were disposed of, vide judgment dated 29.07.2015. 4. Dealing with the issues raised, the said judgment, inter alia, held that mangroves were a lifeline and no breach of the directions of the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority [For short, "MCZMA."] could be tolerated. The layouts, forming part of the petitions and other proceedings, were to be taken into consideration before any directions were issued for regularization. In case any plot owner or developer violated the conditions, the plot in question had to be restored to the original state after demolition of the existing structures, at the risk and cost of the developer and the society. Accordingly, Notice of Motion No. 234 of 2015 taken out by Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Board was allowed and it was permitted to exclude the plots in the layouts for which environmental clearance was granted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests on 10.02.2003 and 10.11.2005 from the operation of the 50 meters buffer zone requirement, but subject to the observations therein. 5. 5. As there was no further restriction in the Coastal Regulation Zone [For short, "CRZ."] Notification dated 19.02.1991, the High Court of Bombay introduced additional safeguards for protection of mangroves, by barring construction activity in the prohibited buffer zone, by interim order dated 06.10.2005. The additional safeguards in the form of directions given in the interim order dated 06.10.2005, were later on incorporated in the Notification dated 06.01.2011. However the interim order dated 06.10.2005 and the Notification dated 06.01.2011, exempted a plot of land even if it fell in the 50 meters buffer zone if it was already a part of an approved layout plan with infrastructural facilities within a municipal area or in an existing legally designated urban area as on 06.01.2011. We need not pronounce on the said cutoff date for the purpose of the present order and judgment as an issue may arise whether the relevant cutoff date should have been the date of the interim order, which is 06.10.2005. 6. In order to carry out the said exercise, i.e., to identify the plots outside the aforesaid approved Ministry of Environment and Forests layouts, the parties concerned were required to move the competent regulatory authority, i.e., the MCZMA or Ministry of Environment and Forests, and not the High Court of Bombay. It was also recorded that when any CRZ clearance was sought, the MCZMA had to satisfy itself that the plot in question was beyond the existing concrete/tar roads towards the landward side and was a part of a developed area; a concept which was explained in the judgment. 7. Our attention is also drawn to the Notification dated 19.01.2000, issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, on the Coastal Zone Management Plan of Maharashtra and categorization based on High Tide Level and Low Tide Level. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said Notification, dealing with the buffer zone around mangroves, read as under: "(6) Buffer around mangroves: The 50 meter buffer zone around mangroves of area 1000 sq. meters and above, will not be required on the landward side provided the road abutting such mangroves was constructed prior to February, 1991. (7) Development of MHADA layout: Status quo shall be maintained in respect of MHADA Layout at Charkop." 8. As noticed above, the aforesaid Notification was issued prior to the interim order passed by the High Court of Bombay on 06.10.2005. 9. (7) Development of MHADA layout: Status quo shall be maintained in respect of MHADA Layout at Charkop." 8. As noticed above, the aforesaid Notification was issued prior to the interim order passed by the High Court of Bombay on 06.10.2005. 9. The order dated 29.07.2015 was challenged before this Court in a special leave petition, and the same was dismissed. 10. The impugned judgment dated 17.09.2018, in paragraph 74' refers to the Chamber Summons, which became the subject matter of the judgment dated 29.07.2015. Thereupon, it states that, while passing the judgment dated 29.07.2015, the attention of the Court was not drawn to condition no. xiii imposed in the letter/order dated 27.09.1996, of the Central Government, by which, the Coastal Zone Management Plan for the State of Maharashtra was sanctioned. It was the condition of the said plan that where mangroves with an area of 1000 sq. meters or more existed, the buffer zone of 50 meters would form part of CRZ I. However, it is an admitted fact that the requirement laid down in the Coastal Zone Management Plan of a 50 meter buffer zone around mangroves of an area of 1000 sq. meters and above, was modified by the Notification dated 19.01.2000, upon satisfaction of the condition stated therein that the buffer zone will not be required on the landward side provided the road abutting such mangroves was constructed prior to February, 1991. 11. In other words, where the road on the landward side abutting the mangroves was constructed prior to February, 1991, the buffer zone of 50 meters was not required. The impugned judgment dated 17.09.2018, disposed of the PIL with several directions, including stoppage of all constructions taking place within 50 meters on all sides of mangroves, regardless of the ownership of the land having such mangroves and the area of the land. 12. In view of the aforesaid position, we may only clarify that the impugned judgment dated 17.09.2018, shall not be read as having modified or altered the conditions which were imposed, vide judgment dated 29.07.2015, in the writ petitions/chamber summons filed by the appellants, provided all the applicable rules and regulations, including the conditions mentioned in the applicable law and in terms of the judgment dated 29.07.2015, are duly met. 13. 13. We further clarify that the observations and findings recorded in above paragraph only pertain to the nine plots, which were the subject matter of the judgment dated 29.07.2015. The said judgment specifically records the details of the nine plots in question and also notes that the said plots were allotted during the period 1987 to 1994 and the infrastructure in the form of laying of roads, etc., had been completed long ago. In other words, as the development has already been completed, it would be impossible to create a buffer zone of 50 meters because of the construction and other development activities which happened long before the interim order dated 06.10.2005. It goes without saying that in case it is possible to create a buffer zone of 50 meters, that aspect must be kept in mind by the authorities concerned while granting approvals. 14. Recording the aforesaid, the appeals are disposed of. 15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.