Supreme Court Orders Demolition of Illegal Constructions in CRZ-III Zone: Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority vs. State of Kerala (2019)

Date of the Judgment: May 8, 2019. Citation: The judgment does not provide an official citation in the INSC format. Judges: The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Navin Sinha.

Can local authorities ignore environmental regulations when issuing building permits? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, focusing on the importance of Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) notifications. This case involved constructions on the shores of backwaters in Ernakulam, Kerala, an area of significant ecological importance. The court had to decide if these constructions, made without proper approvals, should be demolished. The bench comprised Justices Arun Mishra and Navin Sinha.

Case Background

The Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority (KSCZMA) filed appeals against a High Court judgment concerning construction activities in Maradu Municipality, Ernakulam. These constructions were located on the shores of backwaters, a region known for its rich biodiversity and considered one of India’s largest wetlands. The KSCZMA, established under the Environment Protection Act, 1986, is responsible for managing environmental issues in notified Coastal Regulation Zones (CRZ). Construction in these zones requires prior approval from the KSCZMA.

The core issue arose because local authorities, specifically the Maradu Panchayat, issued building permits without consulting the KSCZMA, violating CRZ notifications. The Vigilance Section of the Local Self Government Department, Government of Kerala, identified these violations and directed the revocation of the flawed permits. Show cause notices were issued to the builders, which led to writ petitions in the High Court. The High Court ruled in favor of the builders, stating that they should not be penalized for the local authorities’ failure to comply with statutory provisions. The KSCZMA then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The proceedings began with the issuance of show cause notices by the Vigilance Section of the Local Self Government Department, Government of Kerala, to the builders, asking why their building permits should not be cancelled due to violations of CRZ norms. The builders challenged these notices by filing writ petitions in the High Court. The Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petitions, which was then appealed by the Municipality to the Division Bench. The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge’s decision, stating that the permit holders should not be penalized for the local authorities’ non-compliance with statutory provisions. The Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, after initially hearing the appeals, constituted a Three-Member Committee to determine whether the area in question fell under CRZ-III, CRZ-I, or CRZ-II. This committee was tasked with hearing objections from all parties and submitting a report to the Court. The committee comprised the Secretary to the Local Self Government Department, the Chief Municipal Officer of the concerned Municipality, and the District Collector. The Supreme Court then heard the matter again after receiving the committee’s report.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) notifications issued under the Environment Protection Act, 1986. Specifically, the notification dated 19.02.1991, relating to CRZ-III, states that:

• “The area up to 200 meters from the High Tide Line is to be earmarked as “No Development Zone”. No construction shall be permitted within this zone except for repairs of existing authorised structures not exceeding existing FSI…”

The judgment also refers to Rule 23(4) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999, which states:

• “Any land development or redevelopment or building construction or reconstruction in any area notified by the Government of India as a coastal regulation zone under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986) and rules made thereunder shall be subject to the restrictions contained in the said notification as amended from time to time.”

The Environment Protection Act, 1986, empowers the central government to take measures to protect and improve the environment. The CRZ notifications are issued under this Act to regulate activities in coastal areas to prevent environmental degradation. The Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) is prepared to check construction activities in notified areas. The judgment emphasizes the significance of the approved CZMP, which in this case, designated Maradu as a Panchayat area under CRZ-III.

Arguments

The Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority (KSCZMA) argued that the constructions were taking place in a critically vulnerable coastal area notified as CRZ-III. They contended that the local Panchayat had issued building permits in violation of the relevant statutory provisions and CRZ notifications, without seeking the necessary concurrence from the KSCZMA. The KSCZMA emphasized that the area fell within the “No Development Zone” of 200 meters from the High Tide Line (HTL), where no new construction was permitted, except for repairs of authorized structures. They also highlighted the significance of the Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) and the need to adhere to its regulations to protect the environment and prevent natural calamities.

The builders, on the other hand, argued that they had obtained building permits from the local Panchayat and should not be penalized for the Panchayat’s failure to comply with the statutory provisions and CRZ notifications. They contended that they had acted in good faith and should not be held responsible for the lapses of the local authorities. They also argued that the area was not clearly demarcated as CRZ-III and that the local authorities had not properly informed them about the restrictions. The builders also claimed that they had made significant investments in the construction and that demolishing the structures would cause them substantial losses.

The builders also argued that the area should be considered under CRZ-II as the Panchayat was upgraded to a Municipality. However, the Committee found that the 1996 CZMP was still valid as the draft CZMP was not approved by the Government of India.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the area in question falls under CRZ-III, CRZ-I, or CRZ-II.
2. Whether the constructions were made in violation of the CRZ notifications.
3. Whether the building permits issued by the Panchayat were valid.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority (KSCZMA) and ordered the demolition of the illegal constructions. The court held that the constructions were made in violation of the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) notifications, specifically the notification dated 19.02.1991, which prohibits construction within 200 meters of the High Tide Line (HTL) in CRZ-III areas. The court found that the local Panchayat had issued building permits without the necessary concurrence from the KSCZMA, making the permits illegal and void. The court also noted that the area fell within CRZ-III as per the applicable Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) of 1996.

The court also considered how the authorities were viewed:

• Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India [(1996) 5 SCC 281]* was used to establish the authority of the KSCZMA.
• Piedade Filomena Gonsalves v. State of Goa [(2004) 3 SCC 445]* was followed to emphasize that CRZ violations cannot be condoned.
• Vaamika Island (Green Lagoon Resort) vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2013) 8 SCC 760]* was used to support the order for demolition of illegal constructions.
• Ratheesh v. State of Kerala [2013 (3) KLT 840]* was approved as it held that construction in violation of CRZ notifications was impermissible.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to protect the environment and enforce the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) notifications. The court emphasized the significance of the Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) and the importance of adhering to its regulations to prevent environmental degradation and natural calamities. The court also took judicial notice of the recent devastation in Kerala, which was partly attributed to unbridled construction activities in ecologically sensitive areas. The court’s reasoning was a blend of legal principles and factual considerations, with a strong emphasis on the need to uphold environmental laws and regulations.

The ratio of fact to law that influenced the court’s decision is shown below:

The court’s logical reasoning for the issue of illegal construction is as follows:

The court considered the argument that the builders had obtained permits from the Panchayat but rejected it, stating that the permits were invalid as they were issued without the concurrence of the KSCZMA. The court also rejected the argument that the builders should not be penalized for the local authority’s lapses, emphasizing that everyone is responsible for ensuring compliance with environmental regulations. The court did not consider alternative interpretations that would allow the constructions to remain, as they were in clear violation of the CRZ notifications.

The court’s decision was clear and unequivocal: the constructions were illegal and had to be demolished. The court emphasized that the Coastal Regulation Zone notifications were issued to protect the environment and that violations could not be condoned. The court also highlighted the importance of following the CZMP and the need for local authorities to obtain the necessary approvals before issuing building permits.

The court provided the following reasons for its decision:

• The constructions were within the prohibited zone of CRZ-III.
• The Panchayat issued building permits without the required concurrence of the KSCZMA.
• The constructions violated the CRZ notification dated 19.02.1991.
• The need to protect the environment and prevent natural calamities.

The court quoted from the judgment:

“The Coastal Regulation Zone notifications have been issued in the interest of protecting the environment and ecology in the coastal area. Construction raised in violation of such regulations cannot be lightly condoned.”

“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 Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority.”

“We also take judicial notice 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.”

There were no minority opinions in this case. The decision was unanimous.

Key Takeaways

• Constructions within the prohibited zone of CRZ-III are illegal and subject to demolition.
• Local authorities must obtain prior concurrence from the Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority (KSCZMA) before issuing building permits in CRZ areas.
• The Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) must be strictly followed to protect the environment and prevent natural calamities.
• Ignorance of CRZ regulations is not a valid defense for builders.
• Violations of environmental regulations will not be condoned by the Supreme Court.

This judgment has significant implications for future cases involving environmental violations. It reinforces the importance of adhering to environmental regulations and the need for local authorities to act responsibly. The judgment also sets a precedent for the demolition of illegal constructions in ecologically sensitive areas, emphasizing the need to prioritize environmental protection over private interests.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that all the illegal structures be removed forthwith within a period of one month from the date of the judgment. The court also directed that compliance be reported to the Court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that constructions made in violation of Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) notifications, specifically within the prohibited zone of CRZ-III, are illegal and must be demolished. The judgment reinforces the principle that environmental regulations must be strictly adhered to, and local authorities cannot issue permits in violation of these regulations. This case does not introduce new legal principles, but it reaffirms the existing legal framework and emphasizes the importance of its enforcement. It also provides clarity on the responsibilities of local authorities and builders in adhering to environmental regulations.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority vs. State of Kerala is a landmark decision that underscores the importance of environmental protection and the strict enforcement of Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) notifications. By ordering the demolition of illegal constructions, the court has sent a strong message that violations of environmental laws will not be tolerated. This decision serves as a reminder to local authorities and builders that they must comply with all relevant regulations and that environmental protection must be prioritized over private interests.

Category

Parent Category: Environmental Law

• Child Category: Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ)
• Child Category: Environment Protection Act, 1986
• Child Category: Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999
• Child Category: CRZ-III

Parent Category: Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999

• Child Category: Rule 23(4), Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999

Parent Category: Environment Protection Act, 1986

• Child Category: Section 3, Environment Protection Act, 1986

FAQ

Q: What is a Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ)?

A: A Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) is an area along the coast where certain activities are regulated to protect the environment and prevent degradation. These zones are notified under the Environment Protection Act, 1986.

Q: What is CRZ-III?

A: CRZ-III is a category of Coastal Regulation Zone that includes relatively undisturbed areas, such as rural areas and backwaters. In CRZ-III, there are restrictions on construction activities, particularly within a certain distance from the High Tide Line (HTL).

Q: What is the “No Development Zone” in CRZ-III?

A: The “No Development Zone” in CRZ-III is an area up to 200 meters from the High Tide Line (HTL) where no new construction is permitted, except for repairs of existing authorized structures.

Q: Can I build a house in a CRZ area?

A: Building in a CRZ area is subject to strict regulations. In CRZ-III, construction is generally not allowed within 200 meters of the HTL. Beyond that, construction may be permitted with prior approvals and subject to certain conditions.

Q: What should I do if I want to build in a CRZ area?

A: If you want to build in a CRZ area, you must first consult with the local authorities and the relevant Coastal Zone Management Authority. You will need to obtain the necessary permissions and ensure that your construction complies with all applicable regulations.

Q: What happens if I build illegally in a CRZ area?

A: If you build illegally in a CRZ area, your construction may be subject to demolition. You may also face legal penalties.

Q: What is the significance of the Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP)?

A: The Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) is a plan that outlines the regulations and restrictions for activities in coastal areas. It is prepared to protect the environment and prevent degradation. All activities in CRZ areas must comply with the CZMP.

Q: What was the main issue in the Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority vs. State of Kerala case?

A: The main issue was whether constructions made in violation of CRZ notifications should be demolished. The Supreme Court ruled that they should be demolished.