Directions for the implementation - Amendment made to 1994 notification granting direction to give exemptions invalid - Reduction of distance to 50 metres for backwaters struck down - Management Plan prepared and approved shall be final.

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. 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.

[Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs Union of India and others. 1996(4) JT SC 263=1996(5) SCC 281 = (1996) 3 SCALE 579 ]

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.

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.

[S.Jagannath vs Union of India . AIR 1997 SC 811 = 1997(1)JT SC 160=(1997)2 SCC 87= 1997(1) KLT SN.32.Page 24 = 1977 AIRSCW 635] [Re-affirmed in Gopi Aqua Farms and others vs Union of India . AIR 1977 SC 3519: . (1997)6 SCC 577 ] Another batch of Review Petitions pending . see 2003 (1) SCALE 634.]

Laying of pipelines through wildlife sanctuary – Not a bar – Permitted activity.

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. 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.

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 area".

[ M.Nizamudeen vs Chemplast. AIR 2010 SC 1765 : 2010 (4) SCC 240 : 2010 AIRSCW 1937 ]

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.

[ Piedade Filomena vs State of Goa . AIR 2004 SC 3112: (2004)3 SCC 445 : 2004 AIRSCW 2302 :2004 (4) Bomb CR 719):2004 (2) Supreme 484 : 2004 (3) SCALE 369]

Construction of resort building in Lakshadweep in violation – Equitable considerations are wholly misplaced. Preparation of Integrated Island Management Plan – Supreme Court appointed a Expert Committee

Supreme Court set aside interim order granting permission to run the resort by the High Court is set aside. 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.

[ Union Territory of Lakshadweep vs Seashells Beach Resort. AIR 2012 SC 2309: 2012 (6) SCC 136 : 2012 AIRSCW 3343.]

Salt harvesting by solar evaporation of sea water cannot be permitted in an area that is home to mangrove forests.

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. 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. 2008 (8) SCC 645 : 2008 AIRSCW 6908.]

Violations to be considered by the Coastal Zone Management Authority not 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]

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 20, 2000 (1) BCR 564 (SUPP): CDJ 2000 BHC 153.]

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.]

CRZ - II area – Cochin Marine Drive - Pathway between buildings and water front marked as road in the CZMP - No bar in making the construction.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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 ½ 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. ILR 2003 (2) Kerala 522.= 2003 (3) KLT 424. ]

"Pathira Manal island" not shown in the Plan-List of panchayat does not include this Panchayat.

Property given for star hotel under the guise of tourism . Utilization 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. Land falls within Muhamma Panchayat not shown in the Coastal Zone Management Plan . Exclusion of Kuttanad from the purview of CRZ in view of Thanneermukkam barrage and Thottappilly spillway in the north and south respectively is correct . Name of Panchayat not listed Management Plan. The island not included..

[ Kottayam Nature Society vs Union of India. 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. 2006 (3) KLT 734.]

Prohibition of 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. It cannot be held that activities prohibited/regulated is only industrial.

[ Union of India vs. Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority. 2006 (4) KLT.SN.117. P. 84 :2006(4) CTC 460. ]

Constitution of India – Ar. 166- Orders 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.

[ Dr.V.S.Goplan vs State of Kerala. 2010 (3)KHC 160: 2013 (3) KLT. SN.17.P.23. ]

Environment Protection Act – Sec. 5 - 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.

[ Ansari Konath vs State of Kerala. 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. The District Collector is directed to consider whether there is any further violations.

[Sanju Panda vs State. (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. AIR 2002 AP 195= 2002 (2) Andh LT 297]

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 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. AIR 2002 AP 256 : 2002 (3) AndhLT 57.]

Coastal Regulation Zone – Notification – Duty of the state to protect the environment.

Approval from Seaside Authority to be obtained . 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. ]

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 .

[ Indian Rural Reconstruction Disaster Response Service (PREPARE) vs. Government of India. 2002 (1) ALT 131. ]

Coastal Regulation Zone Notification – Statutory formalities complied with – EIA completed - Bandra-Worli Sea Link Project

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.]

CRZ – Restrictions imposed – Naptha pipe line – Exempted under new 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. 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]8 ILD 176.]

Sand dunes alteration – High Court directed the CZMA to take immediate preventive steps.

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. Writ Petition.No.11864 of 2002 & W.P.M.P.No.15975 of 2002, 26th October, 2005. M. Karpagavinayagam & S.R. Singaravelu (JJ) ]

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)]

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. P.K.Balasubramanyan & M.Ramachandran (JJ)]. [ 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. G.Sivarajan (J)]