Environmental Laws : Coastal areas notified as CRZ-III – Appellant authority empowered to deal with the environmental issues relating to the notified CRZ – Allegation that there was violation in issuance of building permits by the Panchayats – The dispute was that respondent builders were carrying out construction activities on the shores of the backwaters in Ernakulam in the State of Kerala which supports large biologically diversity and constitutes one of the largest wetlands in India – The area in which the respondents carried out construction activities is part of a tidally influenced water body and the construction activities in those areas are strictly restricted under the provisions of CRZ Notifications – Government directed concerned bodies to revoke all the flawed building permits exercising its powers under rr.16 and 23 of Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 – Notice issued to the builders asking to show cause why the building permits issued to them be not cancelled – Writ petition against the notice was allowed on the ground that permit holders could not be taken to task for the failure of local authorities in complying with the statutory provisions and notifications – Appellant authority filed the instant appeal – A Committee was constituted by this court which gave findings that the area in dispute fell in CRZ-III of Coastal Zone Regulations – Held: With respect to CRZ-III, the relevant notification dated 19.2.1991 indicated that the area of 200 meters from High Tide Line is no development zone and no construction was permissible within this zone except for repairs of the authorized structures not exceeding existing FSI – It is necessary for the local authority to follow the restrictions imposed by the notification, as amended from time to time – Thus, it was not open to the local authority, i.e., Panchayat, in view of the notification of 1991 to grant any kind of permission without the concurrence of the appellant authority – Admittedly, Panchayat did not forward any such applications for building permissions – As such, once a due inquiry was held by the Committee, there was no escape from the conclusion that the area fell within CRZ-III and it was wholly impermissible and unauthorised construction within the prohibited area – Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 – rr.16 and 23 – Environment Protection Act, 1986.
Judicial notice: Judicial notice taken of recent devastation in Kerala which had taken place due to heavy rains compounded by such unbridled construction activities resulting in colossal loss of human life and property due to such unauthorised activity – In the instant case, permission granted by the Panchayat was illegal and void – No such development activity could have taken place in prohibited zone – In view of the findings of the Enquiry Committee, directions passed to remove all the structures within a period of one month – Environment Protection Act, 1986 – Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 – rr.16 and 23.
Piedade Filomena Gonsalves v. State of Goa (2004) 3 SCC 445 : [2004] 2 SCR 1135 ; Vaamika Island (Green Lagoon Resort) v. Union of India & Ors. (2013) 8 SCC
760 – relied on.
Ratheesh v. State of Kerala 2013 (3) KLT 840
– approved.
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 281 : [1996] 1 Suppl. SCR 507
– referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.