Directions for the implementation of CRZ Notification in public interest - Amendment made to 1994 notification granting direction to give exemptions invalid- Reduction of distance to 50 metres for backwaters struck down – Direction to prepare Coastal Zone Management Plan get it approved and it hall be final.
In matters relating environment, it may not always be possible to lay down rigid or uniform standards for the entire country. Having issued the main notification, no follow-up action was taken either by the coastal states and Union Territories or by the Central Government . Enactment of law and tolerating its infringement is worse than not enacting the law at all. A law is usually enacted because the legislature feels that it is necessary. Directions issued to coastal states to draw the Coastal Zone Management Plans and got it approved from the MoEF. Once it is approved it is final and binding.
Amendment made in 1994 by empowering Central Government to permit construction in any particular case taking into account the geographical features and other relevant aspects is arbitrary, uncanalized and unguided power, the exercise of which may result in serious ecological degradation and may make the no development zone (NDZ) ineffective is ultra vires and is quashed. By the same amendment the NDZ for rivers, creeks and backwaters which was 100 metres from HTL has been relaxed to 50 metres. Court held that amendment is contrary to the object of the Environment Act and has not been made for any valid reason as is, therefore, held to be illegal. Considering the fact that the Pollution Control Boards are not only overworked but simultaneously have a limited role to play as it relates to controlling of pollution for the purpose of ensuring effective implementation of the notifications of 1991 and 1994, as also of the Management Plans, the Central Government is directed to consider setting up of State Coastal Management Authorities in each State or Zone and also a National Coastal Zone Management Authority. [Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India and others. Kuldip Singh, S.Saghir Ahmad and B.N.Kirpal (JJ). 1996(4) JT SC 263=1996(5) SCC 281 = (1996) 3 SCALE 579.]Referred to (1995)3 SCC 77.
Aquaculture not an industry requiring water front - shrimp culture industry is neither "directly related to water front" nor "directly needing foreshore facilities" Shrimp ponds are prohibited by law- Sea coast and beaches are gift of the nature to mankind. The damage caused to the ecology and economics is higher than the earnings from the sale of coastal aquaculture produce.
Shrimp culture industry/the shrimp culture industries are covered by the prohibition contained in para2 (1) of the CRZ notification. An industry dependent on the seawater cannot by itself is an industry "directly related to water front" or "directly needing foreshore facilities". For shrimp industry what is required is brackish water which can be drawn from any source including sea and carried to any distance by pipes. The purpose of CRZ notification is to protect the ecological fragile coastal areas and to safe guard the aesthetic qualities and uses of the seacoast. The setting up of modern shrimp aquaculture farms on the sea coast and construction of ponds and other infrastructure thereon is per se hazardous and is bound to degrade the marine ecology, coastal environment and aesthetic uses of the sea coast. The Supreme Court therefore held that the shrimp culture industry is neither "directly related to water front" nor "directly needing foreshore facilities". The setting up of shrimp culture farms within the prohibited areas under the CRZ notification cannot be permitted.
Aquaculture industry/shrimp culture industry/shrimp culture ponds other than traditional and improved traditional may be set up/ constructed outside the coastal regulation zone as defined by the CRZ Notification. Aquaculture industry/shrimp culture industry/shrimp culture ponds which have been functioning/operating within the coastal regulation zone as defined by the CRZ Notification and within 1000 mts from Chilka and Pulicat Lakes shall be liable to compensate the affected persons on the basis of the "Polluter Pays" principle. [S.Jagannath vs Union of India . Kuldip Singh and S.Saghir Ahmad (JJ). AIR 1997 SC 811 : 1997(1)JT SC 160=(1997)2 SCC 87: [1996] Supp 9 SCR 848:1996 INSC 14661997(1) KLT SN.32.Page 24 : 1977 AIRSCW 635] Referred to: AIR 1996 SC 1446: (1996)2 JT(SC) 196: 1996 AIRSCW 1069. [Re-affirmed in Gopi Aqua Farms and others vs Union of India . AIR 1977 SC 3519: (1997)6 SCC 577 ]
Laying of pipelines through wildlife sanctuary Jamnagar Marine National Park and Sanctuary –The laying of pipelines is one of the exceptions to the general bar against any construction in CRZ-1 areas.
The laying of pipe lines is one of the exceptions to the general bar against any construction in the CRZ-I areas. It cannot be said that the invariable consequence of laying of pipelines through ecologically sensitive areas has been the destruction or removal of the wild life. It would be ultimately be a question of fact to be determined by experts in each case. There is no prior presumption of destruction of wildlife in the laying of pipe lines. Cases of oil spills have undoubtedly been ecologically disastrous and have drawn the attention of the world but no attention was drawn to any instance of leakage resulting from the laying of pipelines. [Essar Oil Limited vs Halar Ukarsh Samiti. Ruma Pal & B.N.Sreekrishna (JJ). AIR 2004 SC 1834 : 2004 (2) JT 210 : 2004 (2) SCC 392 :2004 AIRSCW 573 : 2004 (1) Scale 584.]
Coastal Zone Management Plan remains the same despite change in CRZ regime by amendment to 1991 notification. The said CZMP does not stand superseded by the plan prepared by the National Institute of Oceanography. Words “in the port area” have to be given purposive construction.
Permission granted by Executive Engineer for laying of pipelines below the riverbed for transferring VCM raw material from jetty to PVC plant. Contention raised it that Uppanar River and its banks are fell in CRZ-III where handling of hazardous substances are prohibited, for which clearance has not been obtained. Coastal Zone Management Plan prepared by the State Coastal Zone Management Authority and duly approved by MoEF is the relevant plan for identification and classification of CRZ areas. The approved CZMP does not show the land portion of the banks of Uppanar River, adjacent to the plant where the pipeline crosses does not come under the CRZ area.
At the time of preparation of the Coastal Zone Management Plan the amendments of 1998 and 2002 to the 1991 notification had not seen the light of the day and the declaration made in 1991 has to be kept in view. But in the absence of any modification carried out thereafter to 1996 plan, the 1996 Plan remains operative. The authorities cannot override the plan prepared and approved under paragraph 3 (3) (i) of the 1991 notification as the said paragraph leaves no manner of doubt that Plan prepared by State and duly approved by the MoEF is the relevant plan for identification and classification of CRZ areas. The plan prepared by the NIO , thus cannot be said to have superseded 1996 plan for the coastal stretch. The expression “in the port areas” should be read as , “ in or through the port areas”. The exception in paragraph 2 (ii) would achieve its objective and read , ‘ except transfer of hazardous substances from ships to ports, ships to terminals and ships to refineries and vice versa, in or through the port areas”. [ M.Nizamudeen vs Chemplast. K.G.Balakrishnan (CJ), R.M.Lodha and Dr.B.S.Chauhan (JJ). AIR 2010 SC 1765 : 2010 (4) SCC 240 : 2010 AIRSCW 1937 ] Referred to (1996)5 SCC 281.
Construction of building in violation of CRZ – Buildings to be demolished .
Construction of a building without securing permission from the competent authorities. Writ petition challenging appellants constructing without authority. High Court directed to demolish. Goa's State Coastal Committee for Environment, the then competent body constituted a sub-committee which reports the entire construction made in violation of CRZ – Not entitled to any relief – Direction issued to demolished is proper. The Coastal Regulation Zone notifications have been issued in the interest of protecting environment and ecology in the coastal area. Construction raised in violation of such regulations cannot be lightly condoned. [ Piedade Filomena vs State of Goa .R.C.Lahoti & AR Lakshman (JJ) AIR 2004 SC 3112: (2004)3 SCC 445 : 2004 AIRSCW 2302 :2004 (4) Bomb CR 719):2004 (2) Supreme 484 : 2004 (3) SCALE 369]
Constructions in CRZ-III area – Later the area changed into CRZ-II – No consequence – Construction made is illegal – Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 – Maradu Municipality – Illegal constructions directed to be demolished.
It is necessary for the local authority to follow the restrictions imposed by the notification , as amended from time to time. Thus it is 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 Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority. Permission granted by the Panchayat is illegal and void. No such development activity could have taken place in prohibited zone. [Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority vs State of Kerala. 2019 (3) KHC 9 (SC). Arun Mistra & Navin Sinha (JJ)]
Construction of resort building in Lakshadweep in violation – Equitable considerations is wholly misplaced. Sustainable development of Lakshadweep Islands - Preparation of Integrated Island Management Plan – Supreme Court appointed an Expert Committee
Supreme Court set aside interim order of the High Court granting permission to run the resort. Equitable considerations are wholly misplaced in a situation where the very erection of the building to be used as resort violated the CRZ requirements or the conditions of land use diversion. The resort could not be commissioned under judicial order in disregard of serious objections that were raised by the Administration, which objections had to be answered before any direction could issue from a writ Court. Supreme Court appointed an Expert Committee for the preparation of the Integrated Island Management Plan. While entrepreneurs may be keen to invest and develop facilities for tourists and infrastructure for locals living on the islands, the question is whether such pressure ought to disturb the Administration's resolve to permit only a planned development and management of these islands on a basis that is both ecologically and economically sustainable. [ Union Territory of Lakshadweep vs Seashells Beach Resort. T.S.Thakur & Gyan Sudha Misra (JJ) AIR 2012 SC 2309: 2012 (6) SCC 136 : 2012 AIRSCW 3343: 2012 (5) Scale 480]
Salt harvesting by solar evaporation of sea water cannot be permitted in an area that is home to mangrove forests –CRZ-I areas- knowingly and purposely damaged the mangroves and other vegetation of the wet land of the CRZ - I area, which could not have been disturbed.
Contempt petitioners knowingly and purposely damaged the mangroves and other vegetation of the wet land of the CRZ-I area, which could not have been disturbed. Under the garb of repairing the old bund, a sort of pukka bund using boulders, and debris has been constructed along with a huge platform, violating the norms of environmental law and in flagrant violation and utter disregard of orders passed by the courts and the District Collector. No court can validate an action which is not lawful at its inception. are directed to restore the height and width of the bund as it was existing prior to the order passed by the District Collector. Court directed to restore the height and width of the bund as it was existing prior to the order passed by the District Collector. [Krishnadevi Malchand Kamathia & Others Vs Bombay Environmental Action Group & Others. P.S.Sathasivam & Dr.B.S.Chauhan(JJ). AIR 2011 SC 1140: 2011 (3) SCC 363: 2011 (2) SCALE 1140: 2011 (1) KLT SN.71 .(Case No.95): 2011(1) KHC SN.36.P.41 (SC). ]
Interim order - Parties directed to maintain status quo in respect of construction within 50 to 100 meters of High Tide Line – Appeal to SC – Grant of stay will cause considerable hardship. Permitted to make constructions.
The project of the appellants is treated to be an ongoing project. The decision dated October 30, 2007 rendered by the National Coastal Zone Management Authority is in favour of the appellants, which is challenged by the respondents in PIL. Grant of stay of construction activity would result into considerable loss to the appellants who have invested huge amount in the project. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be served if the appellants are permitted to complete incomplete construction at their own risk and cost. [Goan Real Estate & Construction Ltd. & Another Versus People's Movement for Civic Action & Others. K.G.Balakrishnan (CJ) & J.M.Panchal (J). 2008 (6) AIR Bom R 625 SC: 2008 AIRSCW 6908.]
CRZ Notification reducing the width of the No Development Zone from 100 meters to 50 meters by the amendment made on 16th August 16, 1994- Approval obtained. Valid though the said Amendment held to be bad. All the properties and assets constructed or under construction in the period between August 16, 1994 and April 18, 1996 during which the setback line was changed from 100 meters to 50 meters was valid.
The declaration that the judgment dated April 18, 1996 rendered in the case of Indian Council for Enviro - Legal Action , 1996 (5) SCC 281, will not affect the on - going constructions or completed constructions pursuant to the plans sanctioned under the amending Notification of 1994 till two clauses of the same were set aside by this Court. Till then, its operation was neither stayed by this Court nor by the Government. Therefore, a citizen was entitled to act as per the said notification. This Court finds that the rights of the parties were crystallized by the amending notification till part of the same was declared to be illegal by this Court. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that part of the amending notification was declared illegal by this Court, all orders passed under the said notification and actions taken pursuant to the said notification would not be affected in any manner whatsoever. [Goan Real Estate & Construction Ltd. & Another Versus People's Movement for Civic Action & Others. K.G.Balakrishnan (CJ) & J.M.Panchal (J). 2010 (5) SCC 388.] Referred to 1993 (4) SCC 727.
Violations to be considered by the Coastal Zone Management Authority not by the Grama Panchayat
Permission to construct a residential building was given . While so he received a notice from the Panchayat to the effect that construction of the building in violation of the CRZ and requested to demolish it. The appellant challenged the same in Writ Petition, but the High Court declined to interfere with the same. SC has held that the proper authority to consider the same is the Coastal Zone Management Authority. The appellant is directed to file application and direction issued to dispose of the same. [ P.A.Fazal Gafoor vs State of Kerala. Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.5038/2002. 25th April , 2003]
Construction without changing the plinth area – Change of “asbestos roof to concrete roof” will not amount to “construction” so as to attract ban in CRZ-III
Two storied building with asbestos roof. The petitioner wanted to same to be replaced by concrete roofing. Building constructed prior to the notification. Changing of “Asbestos roof ” by concrete roof” does not involve any increase in the existing plinth area or FSI of the building and that it is only a ‘repair’ of the existing authorized structure. It cannot have any adverse effect with regard to the scope and object of CRZ Notification. [ Alphonsa Streeder vs Pallipuram. 2011 (3) KLT 49: 2011 (2) KHC 721.].Chelemeswar & P.Ramachandra Menon (JJ)] Referred to : Parthan v. Nayarambalam Grama Panchayat. 2006 (3) KLT 734 : 2006 KHC 864 : ILR 2006 (3) Ker. 465
Panchayat cannot decide the issue of CRZ – Cannot cancel the license issue for the erection of Mobile Tower - Panchayat ought to have obtained expert opinion from Coastal Zone Management Authority.
If the issue of violation of CRZ cannot be decided by the Panchayat, one fails to understand how the permit could have been cancelled by the Panchayat on the ground of CRZ violation. The Panchayat had not even bothered to obtain the expert opinion of the Coastal Management Authority, who is the competent authority to decide the issue, for their decision, before relying on that reason for cancelling the permit. [ Antony vs Chellanam Grama Panchayat. S.Siri Jagan (J). 2009 (3) KLT 334 : 2009 (3) KLJ 655.]
Lease of land in Port area for the establishment of Cement unloading and packing industry on the basis of Technical committee report – HC observed that the order obliges the lessee to get statutory clearance as required by laws- Finding set aside.
Matter pending consideration before the MoEF. The findings and conclusions of the High Court starting from paragraphs 37 onwards of the impugned judgment will not have any binding effect on any of the authorities of the Ministry of Environment and/or any other authorities who are duty bound to consider the projects and sanction such projects only if they conform all requirements of law including environmental requirements. Disposed of. [ Citizen Interest Agency vs Cochin Port Trust. G.B.Pattanaik & Ruma Pal (JJ). 2004 (13) SCC 799: AIR 2004 SC 1231.]
CRZ- II area –Cochin Marine Drive - Pathway between buildings and water front marked as road in the CZMP - No bar in making the construction on the land side
Marine Drive area in Cochin is CRZ-II . In the approved Coastal Zone Management Plan of Kerala a road is shown in between the sea wall and building. It is used as a public road, though for the sake of convenience of the general public vehicular traffic is forbidden on that road. But, it appears from the Coastal Zone Management Plan produced by the State Government and from the counter affidavits filed by respondents 1 to 3, that there is a road of 12 meters in width between the sea wall and the buildings. It is used as a public road, though for the sake of convenience of the general public vehicular traffic is forbidden on that road. The dispute with regard to the width of the road or pathway, whatever is called, cannot be enquired into in this proceeding. At any rate, the statements made by the State Government and the GCDA about the road cannot be rejected merely because the petitioner disputes with regard to the width of it. However, the fact remains that admittedly there is a road in between the sea and the buildings in the Cochin Marine Drive area. It is a road and construction can be made on the landward side. [ Institute of Social Welfare vs State of Kerala. 1997 (2) KLJ 153 : 1997 KHC 300. K.G.Balakrishnan & B.N.Patnaik (JJ). Affirmed in SLP(C)No.20858 of 1997, Jt dated 24-11-1997.]
Goshree Project for construction of bridges by raising money by selling the reclaimed land - No irreparable loss and damages to the ecology - Land proposed to be reclaimed does not come within the CRZ area - Reclamation cannot be prohibited- Duty of Government to provide infrastructural facility - Reclamation if necessary.
New Goshree project will involve a reclamation of 25 hectres near Marine Drive. Where reclamation is to be made is retained by a rubble wall. As a result of which when tide recedes no land is exposed. High Tide and Low Tide Lines coincide as the water level against the rubble wall will merely go down to lower level without touching the bed of the backwaters and therefore land to be reclaimed would outside the CRZ. Serious impairment to aquatic resources , ecology and environment are unlikely to result by reclamation of the small strip of land along the existing marine drive .Prima facie finding that the land proposed will not come within the CRZ areas. Decision held on facts. [Jacob Vadakkancherry v. State of Kerala. B.M.Tulsidas, S.Krishnan Unni & C.S.Rajan(JJ) . AIR 1998 Ker 114.FB.]
Land Reclamation – Only such land reclamation that would disturb the natural course of sea water would fall within the area of prohibition – Goshree – I
Sea water in the Arbian Sea is different from brackish water in the backwaters.. Only such land reclamation as would disturb the natural course of sea water sold fall within the area of prohibition. If the aforesaid interpretation is not accepted, it may lead to the mischief that any obstruction other than land reclamation, bunding, etc. would be permissible even if it would disturb the flow of brackish water in the Coastal Regulation Zone. The prohibition relating to land reclamation is intended to cover only such land reclamation as would disturb the natural course of sea water. No material has been produced to show that the proposed land reclamation would in any matter interfere with the natural flow of water. [Institute of Social Welfare vs State. K.T.Thomas (Actg CJ) & S.Sankarasubban (J) 1996 (1) KLT 718 = AIR 1997 Ker 45 = ILR 1996 (3) Kerala 114.] [Correctness of the dictum laid down in this decision was referred to DB in OP.No. 18097 of 1995. The DB referred the matter to Full Bench in OP.No. 10185 of 1996 and the decision taken as [Jacob Vadakkancherry v. State of Kerala. AIR 1998 Ker 114.FB.]
Construction of hospital building -Difficult to identify the land with the available Management Plan -Man made canal not part of CRZ- Cadastral map to be prepared - Canals are outside the purview of the notification.
No material produced to show that the building was violative. Documents produced indicates of existence of buildings. Evidence indicates the fact that the canal on the basis of which the whole edifice has been raised in violation of CRZ notification. The land does not fall within the CRZ area. It is clear that canals are outside the purview of the notification. Original plan prepared on the basis of the plan given by the Survey of India and the satellite imageries These plans are prepared in 1:12,500 and 1:50:000 scale .Depicting an area of 12 ˝ thousand sq.kms in one inch is a difficult job. In the case of the scale prepared in the ratio 1:50,000 , it is still more difficult . Government is preparing a cadastral plans. No interference [ Citizens Interest Agency vs. Lakeshore Hospital and Research Centre Private Limited. Jawahar Lal Gupta (CJ) & M .Ramachandran (J). ILR 2003 (2) Kerala 522 : 2003 (3) KLT 424. ]
“Pathira Manal island “ not shown in the Coastal Zone Management Plan-List of panchayat does not include this Panchayat.
Property given for star hotel under the guise of tourism . Utilisation of the land for providing homes to the homeless or land to the landless would not in any way be more conductive to ecology than an eco-friendly tourist project.
State of Kerala has published the Coastal Zone Management Plan. The areas, which fall within the Coastal Zone, have been specified. At page 6, while dealing with the areas, it has been mentioned that there are 200 coastal panchayats, 19 Municipalities and 3 corporations. These are detailed in table 1. It is the admitted position that the Island falls within District Alappuzha. The list of Panchayats in this District is at page 11 of the Plan. Muhamma Panchayat, within whose jurisdiction the area falls, it is not mentioned in the list. The Kuttanad area, though lying below mean sea level, is protected from tidal effects (salt water influx) by the Thanneermukkom barrage and Thottappally spillway in the north and the south respectively. Hence, it is excluded from the purview of the notification. It is the admitted position that the Island falls within the Kuttanad area. Thus, it is clear that the activities in the Island are not controlled by the Coastal Zone Management Plan of Kerala. This plan has been approved by the Central Government. [ Kottayam Nature Society vs Union of India. Jawahar Lal Gupta (CJ) & Kurian Joseph (J). 2003 (3) KLT 1105 = 2003 (3) ILR (Kerala) 180. ].[Modified in S.L.P.(C) No. 15698 of 2003. 10-01-2006. Directed the State Government to consider all aspects untrammeled by the Judgment of the Kerala HC]
Classification of Vypeen Island in CRZ-III – Direction issued to consider them for inclusion in CRZ-IV.
The authority may realize ground realities applicable to the particular area while imposing restrictions. No generalization is possible as far as rule or regulation concerned when it comes to its application, particularly in a small State like Kerala which happens to be narrow strip surrounding Arabian Sea and backwaters. CZMA to consider to take decision for modification or amendment of CZMP of Kerala in such a way as to include small islands therein. [ A.C.Parthan vs Narayambalam Grama Panchayat. A.K.Basheer (J).2006 (3) KLT 734]
Prohibition on construction applies to residential buildings also .
Though the CRZ notification has been issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Rules, 1986, it applies to all environmental degradations. It is immaterial as to whether the proposed construction activity is by any individual or Government or Public Sector undertaking. For example, if the zone is coming with CRZ-I, all activities are prohibited within the particular area specified and it does not matter whether such activities are industry related or otherwise. Similarly, in CRZ-2, activities like construction of residential building can be prohibited if the provisions contained in the Act, the Rules or the CRZ Notifications are contravened. It cannot be held that activities prohibited/regulated is only industrial. [ Union of India vs. Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority. P.K.Misra, K.Mohan Ram & M.Jaichandran (JJ) 2006 (4) CTC 460, 2006 (4) MLJ 826, 2006 (4) LW 125: 2006 (4) KLT.SN.117. P. 84 ]
Constitution of India – Art. 166- Order passed by the Chairman of the Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority in his personal capacity, styled as Government order.
The Management Authority consists of 12 members and they have to take a decision. Decision of the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority cannot be done by the Chairman by issuing a Government order. The stand of the respondents that it is not a Government order cannot bear scrutiny in the light of Art.166 of the Constitution of India. [ Dr.V.S.Goplan vs State of Kerala. J.Chelemeswar (CJ) & P.N.Ravindran (J) 2010 (3)KHC 160: 2013 (3) KLT. SN.17.P.23. ]
Coastal Zone Management Plan to be published and should be made available in all places .
State cannot refuse the right of the citizen to have access to the Coastal Zone Management Plan. Right of a citizen is the right to know protected by the Constitution of India. State cannot refuse to make available the plan in the offices of the Local Authorities and the Public Libraries. Government is directed to give sufficient publicity to the COZMAP prepared by the State so as to enable the public know whether there are any deficiencies in that plan and to ensure that the Coastal Zone Management Plan was properly implemented and not violated by anyone. [Kaloor Joseph vs State of Kerala. O.P.No. 20278 of 1997, dated 2nd June, 1998. Unreported]
CRZ Notification – Applicable to rivers, estuaries and backwaters –Validity upheld
Draft notification dated 15th December, 1990 does not contain “estuaries, rivers and backwaters” . Final notification dated 20th February, 1991 contains it. State has conceded before Supreme Court that the notification is valid and has to be enforced . No opportunity to every individual is required . No violation of the principle of natural justice . Need for protecting estuaries stressed . Strict implementation of CRZ notification stressed. [Paul Thomas Mampilly vs Union of India. O.P.No. 3243 of 1997. Dated 12th October, 2001.]. [ affirmed in SLP © No. 6187 of 2002. ]
Dredging of rare minerals – Expansion of existing beach mining operations-Not violative of CRZ
No material has been produced to show that installation of the proposed unit is by way of expansion of the existing industry . Minerals are available outside the State are not having the quality and the placer deposits in the coastal regions in Kerala are unique. Company is directed to take steps to get a comprehensive environmental impact assessment of the area in question done by a national institute of repute in consultation with the State Government. Company is directed to mitigate adverse environmental impact. [ Lurdes D.Costa vs Neendakara Grama Panchayath . O.P.No. 2507 of 1997. Dated 20th July, 1998.]
Mangrove park – Theme park will have adverse effect on environment - Constitution of State Coastal Zone Management Authority does not denude the powers of the Central Government to issue directions – Mangrove forests in Kerala comes under CRZ-I action can be initiated .
By delegation of power the Central Government does not stand denuded of its authority to initiate action under Sec. 5 of the Act. Instead by delegation, the power is conferred on the delegate as well. Report of the expert is sufficient to rely on for the Ministry of Environment and Forests to pass orders. Mere technical infringement of natural justice is not sufficient. Unless prejudice is shown, violation of principles of natural justice ipso facto will not be accepted as a ground to quash a decision. [ Ansari Konath vs State of Kerala. J.Chelemeswar & Thomas.P.Joseph (JJ). 2011 (1) KLT 1043: 2011(1) KHC 405: 2011 (1) KLJ 610: ILR 2011 (1) Ker 403]
Municipality and Development authorities are negligent–Unauthorised construction directed to be demolished.
Unauthorised construction on the beach side. Direction issued to the Municipal authorities to demolish the unauthorized constructions. Direction issued to demolish the compound wall and two rooms illegally constructed immediately. Puri Municipality and Puri-Konark Development Authority are criminally negligent in not protecting the environment and in permitting violations of Coastal Regulation Zone Notifications issued by the Central Government. The District Collector is directed to consider whether there is any further violations. [Sanju Panda vs State. P.K. Balasubramanyan (CJ). &A.S. Naidu(J). (2002)II Orissa Law Reporter 189: 94 (2002) CLT 26. ]
Establishment of electronic and video games complex on beach line – CRZ-III area
Conditions mentioned in Annexure –II of the notification has been strictly adhered to in the instance case – Necessary arrangements for treatment of effluents and other directions mentioned therein have been duly incorporated in the deed of license. All precautionary measures essential for protecting and safeguarding the sensitive area in question before the license has been taken. Authorities has not allowed any prohibited activities. [ MVP Social Workers Association vs Visakapatnam. AR. Lakshmanan( C.J).& V.Rao (J) AIR 2002 AP 195: 2002 (2) Andh LT 297: 2002 (1) ALD 854.]
Aquaculture – Directions issued applicable to all prawn culture and shrimp culture –Prohibition of conversion of agricultural lands to pisci tanks requiring permission from competent authorities not bad in law. – CRZ applies to operations in fresh water also .
The direction issued by the Supreme Court of India S.Jagannath vs Union of India applies to all types of aqua culture like prawn culture, shrimp culture. The direction of the Supreme Court is not confined to shrimp culture or prawn culture in brackish/saline water within Coastal Regulation Zone but applicable to aquaculture and prawn culture in fresh water. [Madereddy Padma Rambabu vs. District Forest Officer. S B Sinha (CJ)& V Rao(J) AIR 2002 AP 256 : 2002 (3) AndhLT 57: 2002 (1) ALD 728.]
Duty of the state to protect the environment stressed. Coastal area to be protected
Approval from Seaside Authority to be obtained . It is the responsibility of the coastal States and Union Territories to comply with CRZ Notification and prepare and get approval of the management plans before taking up development in accordance with the plan and that till the preparation and approval of the said plans by virtue of the provisions of the main Notification, no development in the coastal areas within the NDZ (No Development Zone) can take place. Violation to be considered by the authority. Direction issued to SADA. State and High Court shall endeavor to protect and improve environment. [ Vishunu Moor vs Vishkapatnam Urban Development Authority. 2002 (4) ALT 746. V.V.S.Rao (J) ]
Coastal Zone Regulation –Slab system for demarcating CRZ is valid.
Ministry of Environment and Forests issued a letter dated 13-3-1997 by demarcation on the basis of a slab system was suggested for Rivers, creeks and backwaters. Such a direction is valid . The slab system is not violative of provisions of CRZ notification and in any way inimical to fragile coastal ecology of the State and the slab system is not at all contravening any of the judgments rendered by the Supreme court. [ Indian Rural Reconstruction Disaster Response Service (PREPARE) vs. Government of India. 2002 (1) ALT 13: 2002 (1) ALD 792]
Worli-Bandra Sea Link Project was included in the revised Development Plan and also included in the Coastal Zone Management Plan, which has the approval of the Government of India- Statutory formalities complied with – EIA completed -
Coastal Zone Management Plan, which includes the project, has also been approved by the Government of India. Project would not cause any ecological or environmental damage. Court cannot lose sight of the fact that while maintaining and observing environment and ecology , the Government is also required to solve other problems, which are of varied nature and also involving public interest, and, therefore, a balance has to be struck between the two. If the project violated any statutory provision, and resulted in ecological and environmental damage, court would have no hesitation in quashing the project itself. Court found that the project will not have any such result, and all that can be said is that the procedure under the three EIA Notifications was not followed, though we find that Environmental Impact Assessment Report was submitted along with the application for grant of environmental clearance by the Government of India, and that was followed by seminars in which social activists and environmentalists had adequate opportunity of expressing their views. [Rambhau Patil vs Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation. 2002 (1) BCR 76, 2002 (1) ALL MR 385..]
CRZ – Restrictions imposed – Naptha pipe line – Exempted by subsequent amendment.
Pipeline for the carriage of Naptha from refinery to port passing opposed on the ground that it infringes CRZ restriction. Central Government and Bombay State Pollution Control Board granted sanction. Amendment of the notification has to be read purposely, because Naptha processing need foreshore facilities and only limitation on that could be clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forests. The pipeline set up cannot be said to be a prohibited activity. It will have to be held as a permitted activity, which will be regulated under the environmental clearance from the M.O.E.F. and that clearance has been granted by the Ministry. In the circumstances, the objections raised in both the petitions cannot be accepted. CRZ permits pipe line . [ Environsare Foundation vs Union of India. 2003 (2) Bom CR 519.]
CRZ – Construction by the Fishery Survey of India – Change of location of the site – Fresh sanction to be obtained from the MoEF.
MoEF approved on 23-10-1991 the construction facilities by FSI requiring water frontage . The safeguards envisaged that the publication and extension services should be located beyond 500 meters from High Tide Level . No change in the use from what was originally envisaged shall be permissible without the permission of MoEF which shall act in accordance with the principle contained in the CRZ notification that the activity permitted only if it requires foreshore and water shore facilities. Direction issued to move the MoEF again. [Mrs. Ameeta Shah vs State of Maharastra.2003 (5) Bom C R 95 : [2003]8 ILD 176.]
Sand dunes alteration – High Court directed the CZMA to take immediate preventive steps.
The State Government is committed to protect and safeguard the ecological importance of the Adyar Creek by suitable conservation and preventive measures. The Madras High Court directed the Tamil Nadu Coastal Zone Management Authority to take all measures including preventive measures for cessation of all illegal activities including clearing and leveling of land, extraction and removal of sand, raising unauthorised structures on the Elliots Beach, north of the Urur Olcott Kuppam and ensure compliance of the CRZ notification to remediate the areas affected by the sand extraction. [Trust for Restoration of Ecology and Environment Vs The Member Secretary Tamilnadu Coastal Zone Management Authority. (2006) 1 MLJ 72.]
Clarification to the term “existing authorized buildings” valid and is inconsonance with the law.
Clarification issued by the Government that the phrase "Existing Authorised Buildings" means those buildings of a permanent nature that were existing prior to 19.2.1991, and was constructed in accordance with the building regulations and bye-laws in vogue prior to 19.2.91, and had received necessary sanctions. including commencement and occupation certificates from the concerned local authority prior to 19.2.1991. Further, the construction of buildings, including expansion and reconstruction should be in accordance with the FSI/FAR norms and all other Town and Country Planning Regulations, including maximum permissible density, height, zoning etc. that were prevalent and in force as on 19.2.1991. The phrase 'building' means a permanent fixed structure with a roof forming an enclosure and providing protection from the elements. Valid. Not an amendment to the existing CRZ. [ Buildarch & anr. Versus Union of India & ors. 2000 (2) Bom.L.R 2:, 2000 (1) BCR 564 (SUPP): CDJ 2000 BHC 153. A Shah, K.S Radhakrishnan (JJ)]
Environmental Clearance obtained- Finding by the KCZMA that it is manmade canal, subsequent finding that it is natural canal – No accepted – KCZMA authorities is restrained in delayed procedure- Whether CRZ clearance required –Clarity required -Cost to be retained-
DLF should have stayed its hand till CRZ permission had also been obtained. But the fact remains that on account of delay in the same it was perceived as deemed permission case –rightly or wrongly. Due weightage given to revenue records. The existence of the coconut trees is also supports the case. No violation of CRZ. But however a question mark on the issue of not obtaining of CRZ clearance, which aspect, at least should have answered for future reference. Direction to deposit one crore upheld. [ The Secretary, Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority vs DLF Universal Limited. 2018 (2) SCC 203: ILR 2018 (1) Kerala 248 : AIR 2018 SC 389:2018 (8) FLT 248 (SC). R.F.Nariman and S.K.Kaul (JJ)] From the judgment in DLF Universal Ltd vs Antony. ILR 2017(1) Kerala 280. P.R.Ramachandra Menon & Anil K Narendran (JJ) & Antony vs Corporation of Cochin. 2015 (1) KLT 178: ILR 2015 (1) Kerala 476 : 2014 (4) KLJ 841.]
Construction as per building permit – No necessity go get NOC from the Coastal Zone Management Authority-Occupation certificate to be issued.
When the construction is completed and occupation certificate is applied for the builder cannot be asked to get NOC from the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority. [ Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority vs Pearls Infrastructure Projects Ltd. 2017 (2) KLT 602.]
Construction of hotel – Sanction given by Ministry of Environment and Forest – No violation of CRZ – Reports of NIO obtained subsequently not relevant.
Central Government has take due care in obtaining reports from the authorities to have a spot inspection and report about the feasibility of the hotel project being cleared up . No violation of CRZ area – Report of National Institute of Ocenography during the pendency of the litigation that the construction would have the effect of demolition of the sand dunes. Report does not indicate that there is violation of CRZ . Relevant factors have been considered by the Ministry. [Goa Foundation vs Diksha Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 2001 (2) SCC 97 = AIR 2001 SC 184 = 2001 (2) Bomb LR 550.]
Coastal Regulation Zone notification - Back bay reclamation scheme - Larger public interest prevails.
Construction of Bulk Receiving Station by Electric Company on one of the plots in Scheme. Imaginary line from authorized structure runs parallel to HTL. More so when in the context of structures on adjoining plots, the said plot could easily form part of developed area . Further the larger public interest prevails, particularly when two public interests compete with each other as there is utmost need in the locality for the Bulk Receiving Station. Construction does not contravene provisions of CRZ notification. [Sneha Mandal Co-operative Housing Society Ltd vs. Union of India. AIR 2000 Bom 121.]
Fixation of High Tide Line – Embankment has effect of curtailing the flow of water- HTL commences from the embankment.
The fact that the property lies below the mean sea level does not mean that the property cannot ever be protected from tidal effects (salt water influx). If the property is protected by physicial boundaries or otherwise, then the position is different. [ P.Vasudevan vs Centre for Earth Science Studies. WP(C)No. 35115 of 2008, dated 24th March, 2009 of the Kerala High Court.]
High Tide Line cannot be shifted after visiting the property – Demarcation done in the approved Coastal Zone Management Plan cannot be changed subsequently
Tribunal held that when the accredited agency viz., Institute of Remote Sensing, Anna University, Chennai has clearly indicated the HTL, there is no reason for the 1st respondent to go beyond that. The authorities who are authorised to demarcate the High Tide Line (HTL) cannot override the plan prepared and approved under para 3 (3) (i) as the said paragraph leaves no manner of doubt that Coastal Zone Management Plan prepared by the Coastal Zone Management Authority and duly approved by MoEF & CC is a relevant plan for identifying and classification of the areas. [ Fairlog Warehousing vs Kerala CZMA. 2016 (6) FLT 9 (NHT-SZ)]
Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991 –Violation of CRZ – No regularization possible – Area under CRZ.
The 1991 Regulations cannot be invoked for regularization of the disputed construction because the same were enforced much after rejection of the amended plans and the plot in question is situated in CRZ area. The word "existing" as employed in the CRZ notification means the town and country planning regulations in force as on 19-2-1991. If it had been the intention that the town and country planning regulations as in force on the date of the grant of permission for building would apply to the building activity, it would have been so specified. It is well to remember that CRZ notification refers also to structures which were in existence on the date of the notification. What is stressed by the notification is that irrespective of what local town and country planning regulations may provide in future the building activity permitted under the notification shall be frozen to the laws and norms existing on the date of the notification. On 2-2-1991 when the CRZ notification was issued, the only building regulations that were existing in city of Mumbai, were the DC Rules, 1967. In view of the contents of CRZ II notification issued under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act which has the effect of prevailing over the provisions of other Acts, the application submitted by the appellants to develop the plot belonging to them would be governed by the provisions of the DC Rules, 1967 and not by the draft development regulations of 1989 which came into force on 20- 2-1991 in the form of the Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991. The argument that in view of the provisions of Section 46 of the Town Planning Act, 1966, the Planning Authority has to take into consideration the draft regulations of 1989 and, therefore, the appellants would not be entitled to additional FSI is devoid of merits. [ Esha Ekta Apartments Housing Society vs Municipal Corporation of Mumbai. AIR 2013 SC 1861: 2013 (5) SCC 357.]
Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 – Rule 13 (3) –Denial of Bar license on the ground of violation of CRZ – Practice deprecated.
The petitioner being a three star hotel is promoting tourism in the State and most of the rooms are occupied during season by foreign tourists and every hotel with three star facility is enjoying bar licence, is the specific case of the petitioner. The shifting of the ground in each and every order issued by the Government in declining licence itself is indicative of the fact that the State does not want to grant licence to the petitioner. Direction issued to grant license .[ Sagara Beach Resort vs State of Kerala. 2012 (2) KLT 464.]
Land falling within CRZ – Owner allowed to repair old bund- Constructing pucca bund by using boulders and debris thereby damaging mangroves and other vegetation of wet land of CRZ-I area – Act of owner is deliberate and will amount to contempt of court.
The CRZ regulations allow for salt harvesting by solar evaporation of sea water in CRZ - I areas only where such area is not ecologically sensitive and important. It has been established that mangrove forests are of great ecological importance and are also ecologically sensitive. Thus, salt harvesting by solar evaporation of sea water cannot be permitted in an area that is home to mangrove forests. The land in dispute has not been used for manufacturing of salt for more than two decades. The District Collector while deciding the application of the applicants for according permission to repair the bund has explicitly incorporated the conditions that the appellants would only repair the old bund without raising its height and ensure full protection of mangroves. Various reports submitted to the authorities concerned make it clear that there have been flagrant violations of the conditional order and that included : (i) Closing the natural flow of water which has adverse effect on existing mangroves; (ii) A large number of mangroves had been cut / destroyed while repairing the bund and a large number of mangroves were found cut manually; (iii) Height and width of the bund had been increased to an unwarranted extent. The reports reveal that width of the bund had been extended by 12 ft. to 15 ft. while the old bund was not beyond 6 ft width. (iv) Instead of mud, big boulders, concrete, debris had been used. Several platforms of 25 to 30 mtrs with the width of 16 to 20 mtrs. have been constructed; (v) Debris was being dumped beyond the area of platform in the land in dispute trying to increase the width of the platform; (vi) The cut mangroves have been used to increase the height of the bund; (vii) Breathing roots and branches of mangroves were found stucking out of the muddy area of the bund; and (viii) A large number of mangroves died because of removal of mud and stagnation of water. [ Krishnadevi Malchand Kamathia vs Bombay Environmental Action Group. AIR 2011 SC 1140: 2011 (3) SCC 363: 2011 AIR SCW 1291.]
Construction on the guise of repair – Structures are within CRZ- No violation
Bare look at the photograph will show that it is not repair but new construction. Though the petitioner Piedade Gonsalves has stated that her construction is beyond 200 metres of HTL, yet she has nowhere dislcosed that the structures are beyond 500 metres of HTL. Therefore the restrictions in respect of the vacant plots would be directly applicable to the suit property in question and no construction in such area can be carried out without prior approval of the Ministry of Environment. No such approval has been obtained by the petitioner Piedade Gonsalves from the Ministry of Environment and Forests. The constructions have been done without obtaining any permission or licence or prior approval of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, as required under the CRZ Regulations. The constructions in question are totally illegal and, as such, are liable to be demolished. [ Felix Menino Jesus vs State of Goa. AIR 2001 Bom 294.]
Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991(DC Regulations, 1991) - Regulation 35(iv), Regulation 35(ii)(2)(c) – Issue of stop memo on the ground of CRZ violations – Directions issued.
It is clear on bare perusal of the above paragraph 4(d) of CRZ Notification dated 6 January 2011 that the projects having less than 20,000 sq. mtrs. built-up area shall be approved by the local planning authority, in accordance with CRZ Notification dated 6 January 2011 after obtaining the recommendations from MCZMA. Petitioner society is entitled to get the benefit of paragraph 8(V)(1)(iii)(c) of CRZ Notification dated 6 January 2011 and is, therefore, entitled to the benefit of Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991, particularly Regulation 35(ii)(2)(c) and Regulation 35(iv) thereof for the purposes of excluding staircase, lift and lift lobby areas while computing FSI; Upon Petitioner society making an application to MCZMA for granting the recommendation/clearance, as contemplated in paragraph 4(d) ofCRZ Notification dated 6 January 2011, MCZMA shall consider granting such recommendation/clearance within a period of two months or at the immediate next meeting of MCZMA to be held after receiving the application, whichever is earlier. [ Sea Green Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Versus Union of India .CDJ 2014 Bombay HC 1587]
Non-granting of CRZ clearance by the Coastal Zone Management Authorities on a misunderstanding -
It is a clear case that while measuring CRZ area, instead of taking the creek as the tidal body, sea was erroneously taken as the tidal body. The MCZMA's view in favour of the petitioner is based on the survey conducted by National Institute of Oceanography (NIO) Goa, and Center for Earth Science and Studies (CESS) Trivandrum, both expert agencies recognized by NCZMA. The society with 480 members which has already demolished its old tenements, cannot be asked to wait for one more year, merely because NCZMA and MCZMA are going to revise Coastal Zone Management Plan in accordance with the self same CRZ Notifications. [M/s. Mayurpunkh Fine Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Others Vs State of Maharashtra . 2014 CDJ Bombay HC 931.]
Coastal stretches not only sea - Backwaters of Kerala coming within the purview of CRZ Notification –Width of the river or 100 metres whichever is less to be followed- Backwater islands are also covered by 1991 notification even though there is a specific category in 2011 notification- Filtration pond is a waterbody – Interpretation done by experts to be followed- Construction on no-development zone not to be permitted. Absence of Panchayat Rules – Not a valid ground to violate Notification-CRZ Notification is law.
Vembanad in Kerala is referred to as the ecologically sensitive area. The process of declaring the same as CVCA on the basis of consultation is apparently an ongoing process. It may be noticed that in the 1991 Notification and the 2011 Notification, marine parks are specifically mentioned as falling under CRZ-I. In the CRZ-I under the 1991 Notification, apart from marine parks, there is reference to areas close to breeding and spawning of fish and other marine life. In the 2011 Notification, however, while retaining the marine parks, the words “areas close to breeding and spawning of fish and other marine life” are not present. Likewise, under the 1991 Notification, the areas likely to be inundated due to rise in sea level consequent upon global warming are shown under CRZ-I. This category is not seen included in CRZ-I in the 2011 Notification. The words “breeding and spawning grounds of fish” are found used in connection with the words “ecologically sensitive areas” in Annexure III guidelines relating to development of beach resorts or hotels in designated areas of CRZ-III and CRZ- II. - The guidelines issued under the 1991 and the 2011 Notifications prohibit construction of beach resorts and hotels in ecologically sensitive areas which include areas of breeding and spawning of fish. [ A.S. Ratheesh vs State of Kerala 2013 (3) KLT 840: ILR 2013 (3) Kerala 827: 2013(4) KLJ 120: 2013 KHC 531.] affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Constructions in violation of - liable to be demolished. –Vembanad backwaters –
Reconstruction work during the period of 1991-2011 notification. Vembanad lake is presently undergoing severe environmental degradation due to increased human intervention and , as already indicated, recognizing the socio-economic importance of this water body, it has recently been scheduled under the vulnerable wet lands. [Vaamika Islands vs Union of India. 2013 (3) KLT 677 (SC)]
Resort constructed in violation of CRZ- cannot claim equity – Permission to run resort without deciding the alleged violations cannot be granted by interim order
Equitable considerations are wholly misplaced in a situation where the very erection of the building to be used as a resort violated the CRZ requirements or the conditions of land use diversion. The resort could not be commissioned under a judicial order in disregard of serious objections that were raised by the Administration, which objections had to be answered before any direction could issue from a writ Court. Supreme Court directed the constitution of Expert Committee to look into matters set out in terms of references and to submit preliminary report about steps taken by it within a period two months. [ Union Territory of Lakshadweep vs Seashells Beach Resort and ors., 2012 (6) SCC 136: AIR 2012 SC 2309 :2013 AIR SCW 3343.]
Guidelines so as to prohibit constructions within a particular distance before the coming of CRZ laws – Not a valid law –
In the absence of due authentication and promulgation of the guidelines, the contents thereof cannot be treated as an order of the Government and would really represent an expression of opinion. If the guidelines relied upon by Union of India in the present case fail to satisfy the essential and vital parameters/requirements of law as the trend of the above discussion would go to show, the same cannot be enforced to the prejudice of the appellants as has been done in the present case. For the same reason, the issue raised with regard to the authority of the Union to enforce the guidelines on the coming into force of the provisions of the Environment Protection Act so as to bring into effect the impugned consequences, adverse to the appellants, will not require any consideration. Violation of Article 21 on account of alleged environmental violation cannot be subjectively and individually determined when parameters of permissible/impermissible conduct are required to be legislatively or statutorily determined under Sections 3 and 6 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 which has been so done by bringing into force the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification w.e.f. 19th February, 1991.[ Gulf Goans Hotels Co. Ltd. & Another Versus Union of India & Others. 2014 CDJ SC 804.]
Occupation certificate non issuance by the Panchayat on the ground of non obtaining of NOC from CZMA – Arbitrary
Construction of multi-storied building which has 90 dwelling units. Municipal authorities denial of issuance of occupation certificate on the ground of non issuance of No objection Certificate from the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority, it not proper. Once the person is permitted to put up construction , that has necessarily to be taken as a grant for putting up construction for occupation. [ Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority vs Pearls Infrastructure Projects. 2017 (2) KHC 637. (DB)]
Kerala Coastal Zone Management Plan, 1996 shows the Maradu Panchayat land areas classified as CRZ-III – Subsequent conversion of Panchayat as Municipality – Construction made when it was Panchayat – Building permit issued is illegal – Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 – Rule 16 and 23 – Necessity to follow the CRZ Notification-Direction issued to demolish it.
It is the binding duty of the local self-governments, the competent authority issuing building permits to forward application for building permission to the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority along with the relevant record. The Coastal Zone Management Plan has been prepared to check these types of activities and construction activities of all types in the notified areas. The High Court has ignored the significance of approved CZMP. The area in which the respondents have carried out construction activities is part of tidal influenced water body and the construction activities in those areas are strictly restricted under the provisions of the CRZ Notifications. The constructions activities are taking place in critically vulnerable coastal areas which are notified as CRZ-III. The Panchayats have issued these permissions in violation of relevant statutory provisions and CRZ notifications. Permission granted by the Panchayat was illegal and void. No such development activity could have taken place. In view of the findings of the Enquiry Committee, direction issued to remove all the structures. [ Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority vs State of Kerala. (2019) 7 SCC 248: 2019 (3) KLT 9 (SC)]
Coastal Zone Management Plans not properly prepared – Direction to prepare it properly and reconsider the issue.
Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority or other competent authorities zare directed to consider / reconsider request for sanction or take action only when the Cadastral Map of 2023 is approved by the Government whereby the distance of 200 metres in CRZ - III has been reduced to 50 metres and then examine each and every case, pending or future applications, depending upon the location, situation and the extent of construction, permitted or prohibited. [Green Hopper Hotels and Resorts (P) Ltd. v. Union of India. 2024 KHC 1141 : 2024 KHC OnLine 1141 : 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 27]
Fishing harbor on sand dune area. Instances of laying of eggs by Olive Ridey Turtles pointed out. As the area comes under CRZ-IA no new construction is permitted. Construction of Trans Harbour sea link without affecting the tidal flow of water between LTL and HTL and development of green field airport allowed only in Navi Mumbai. [ Rajakkamangalam Thurai Trust vs Union of India. 2017 NGTS (1) SZ 612. ]
CRZ Clearance – Direction by of the Scientist-E of Ministry of Environment and Forests declaring amendment – Invalid and set aside
Letter dated 4th November, 2016 by Scientist-E declaring amendments in the CRZ stating that no Environmental Clearance is required from SEIAA (GOA). In order to promote sustainable development the parties have agreed to submit application to SEIAA. Amendments made set aside. [ Cansaulim Arrossim Cuelim vs Competent Automobiles Company Ltd. 2017 NGTS (1) WZ 372.]