WHY MARADU CONSTRUCTIONS ILLEGAL AND DLF CONSTRUCTIONS REGULARISED BY PAYMENT OF FINE –CRZ LAW EXPLAINED

 

Adv. P.B.SAHASRANAMAN

 

Is there any arbitrariness in the judgments of Supreme Court regularising the constructions of DLF[1] and ordering the demolition of the buildings at Maradu[2] on the violation of the Coastal Regulation Zone notification? That is the question mainly posed by many. Why the constructions made in Maradu Municipality were directed to be demolished when the constructions made by DLF at Cochin Corporation were regularised on payment of one crore as a pollution fine? These are some of the questions raised by many on the interpretation of CRZ law.

Undoubtedly the construction of DLF and apartment buildings at Maradu are in CRZ areas.  But when the constructions are made in Maradu it was a grama Panchayat and not Municipality. Whereas the constructions were made by DLF  on the banks of Chillavannur lake which lies in the Cochin Corporation area. The Kerala Government has made a different type of classification, which is not done in any other state when the Coastal Zone Management Plan was prepared.

The CZMP of Kerala categorised the entire areas in Panchayats as CRZ-III (underdeveloped areas)  whereas the areas in Municipal and Municipal Corporation areas (developed areas) as CRZ-II. In CRZ-III no construction is possible in the No Development Zone (NDZ).  The NDZ is 100 meters in the case of backwater areas and 200 meters at the seafront. In CRZ-II areas constructions can be carried out on the landward side of the existing road or structures. There is NDZ in CRZ-II areas. In other words, free construction on the landward side of existing structures or buildings is permitted.

The DLF constructions were in the Cochin Corporation area, a CRZ-II area where there is no restriction on making constructions on the landward side of the existing road or structures. Since it is a project which requires Environmental Clearance they have not obtained separate CRZ Clearance. The KCZMA took the stand that no clearance was given by them though they recommended the project proposal to MoEF on 20.3.2010. SC repelled all other objections raised by the KCZMA but found that there lacks clarity on the obtaining of prior clearance before the commencement of constructions. Court held that henceforth a prior clearance and necessary clarifications should be issued by the concerned authorities in a time-bound manner to obviate such situations to arise in the future. The fine amount of one crore was maintained for the technical reason that before the commencement of construction clearance was not obtained.

The Maradu Grama Panchayat was categorised as CRZ-III in the approved CZMP. Though the Panchayat became a Municipality in November 2010, there is no change in the categorisation of CZMP. The constructions were made when the area in question are categorised as CRZ-III and in the NDZ. Thus the constructions are illegal. The change in categorisation of the CRZ was made only when the new CZMP was prepared and approved on 28-02-2019. But the Municipal authorities and others were under the impression that the CRZ categorisation has already changed from CRZ-III to CRZ-II, when it became a Municipality, justified the constructions.

There is no illegality in the constructions made by DLF though there is some irregularity in the approval procedure. But the constructions made are found to be illegal because of that it was directed to be demolished.

The legally recognised system of identifying the CRZ areas is the approved Coastal Zone Management Plan which is final and binding on the authorities[3]. Otherwise, the categorisation of areas will be changed at the will of the authorities arbitrarily. The duty of the state is to identify and classify CRZ areas. Once it is done and it is approved by the Ministry of Environment and Forests it cannot be changed by the authorities as they like. Every change in the CZMP has to be approved by the MoEF. The applicability of the CRZ to a particular area has to be ascertained from the Map and not the nature of land as on date.

***************


[1] The Secretary, Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority vs DLF Universal Limited. 2018 (2) SCC 203:

[2] Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority vs State of Kerala. (2019) 7 SCC 248: 2019 (3) KLT 9 (SC)]

[3] Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action   vs. Union of India.1996(5) SCC 281

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

  Virtual Court hearing saves judicial time – Should be made a permanent feature.   The Indian courts permitted the presentation of testimonial evidence by electronic means and telepresence of the accused much before the pandemic situation. The National Green Tribunal started using the video conferencing facility for hearing cases throughout India in 2018. At that time the Southern Zonal bench was not sitting. But lawyers can go to Court hall in Chennai and argue before the Southern Bench sitting at Delhi through the video conferencing facility arranged at the Court hall. But the Pandemic situation of 2020 made most of the Courts in India function through video conferencing. The lawyers were able to make use of their computers, laptops, iPad, and mobile phones to appear before the High Court and Supreme Court. For the last two years from Supreme Court to all mofussil courts are using the video conferencing method to hear the arguments of the parties. The experience gat...
Read more
 Coastal Regulation Zone laws why it failed in Kerala sahasram@gmail.com  Short History of the CRZ The Government of India has issued the so-called “Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 1991” for the purpose of protecting the coastal ecology. Water bodies affected by tidal waters are to be marked as CRZ. Every State has to identify such areas and classify it as CRZ-I, II or III and prepare a Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP). It is at that time MC. Mehta approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court which issued directions to prepare the CZMP. An interim order was issued on 12-12-1994 halting all constructions upto 500 meters from the High Tide Line. This was slightly modified on 09-03-1995  permitting constructions as per the Notification. Finally when the case was disposed for directing the coastal states to finalise the CZMP and get it approved from the MOEF.  Coastal Zone Management  Plan Preparation Hon’ble Justice Kudip Singh of the Supreme Court was very ...
Read more
LINKS TO SOME WRITINGS OF JUSTICE V.R.KRISHNA IYER · A bizarre nuclear deal pursuit · A courageous voice of dissent · A democratic demand · A questionable instrument .State terrorism is no answer to combat terrorism · Accords sans accountability · Appointments and Disappointments · Article 356 should be abolished. · Contempt power and some questions · Criticism of Courts-1 · Criticism of Courts-II · Disasters of distorted urban development. Garbage crisis in Kochi and some lessons. · For a creative strategy. Peace is India’s first charge. · Hidden agenda of TRIPPS · House Privileges and Courts · In Public Interest. Activist judiciary: a pro bono fiduciary vis-a-vis operation public interest litigation. · Imperatives before the judiciary · Judges are public servants, not bosses · Judicial Appointments · Judiciary – A reform Agenda-I · ...
Read more