M/S VAAMIKA ISLAND (GREEN LAGOON RESORT)versusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

                   (2013) 17 S.C.R. 965


   MIS VAAMIKA ISLAND (GREEN LAGOON RESORT)                    A
                             v.
               UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
         (S.L. P. (Civil) Nos. 24390-24391 of 2013)
                    AUGUST 08, 2013
                                                               B
     [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.]

     Environmental Law:

        Vembanad Backwater (lake) in Kera/a - Having several c
 Islands in and around - The lake declared Critically
 Vulnerable Coastal Area - Considering the fragile eco-
 system of the wetland, deterioration of water quality and
 damage to aquatic organisms and shrinkage of the lake, it
 was included in National Lake ConseNation Programme - 0
 Coastal Regulation Zone Notifications issued as a part of
 Environment Protection Act, 1986 with an object to protect the
 coastal area from eroding and to preserve its natural
 resources - One of the islands Vettica Thuruthu, described
 as Coastal Regulation Zone-I by Coastal Regulation Zone
 Notification 1991 and described as Coastal Regulation Zone E
 I, Ill and IV by Notification 2011 - The island also shown as
 Filtration Pond - New construction, re-construction and
  Tourism activities prohibited on the island - Constructifm of
 Beach Resorts on the Islands - Legality of - Held: The
 construction on the island was in violation of the provisions F
 of Notifications 1991 and 2011 as well as Map 32A of Coastal
·Zone Management Plan whereby the island was declared as
 Filteration Pond - Direction for demolition of illegal
 construction by High Court is correct - Environment
 Protection Act, 1986.                                          G
    The petitioner filed awrit petition before High Court
seeking a declaration that few items of its properties were
wrongly included in Map No.32A of the Coastal Zone
                             965                              ·H
    966      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2013) 17 S.C.R.


A   Management Plan (CZMP), prepared by Kerala Coastal
    Management Authority (KCZMA) and hence ultra vires the
    Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 1991 and CRZ
    Notification, 2011. The petitioner had also sought for a
    delaration that classification of its properties situated in
B   Vettilla Thuruthu Island as Filtration Pond and the
    consequent categorization of the same, under CRZ-1 was
    unconstitutinal being ultra vires CRZ 1991 as well as CRZ
    2011.
        KCZMA took the stand that CZMP was prepared
C   based on the guidelines issued by Ministry of
    Environment and Forests (MoEF) Government of India.
    The entire Vettilla Thuruthu was indicated as Filtration
    Pond by CZMP.

o        MoEF stated that CZMP for Kerala was prepared by
    the MoEF, and that the construction of beach resorts
    within CRZ area required prior clearance from MoEF,
    based on the recommendation of the KCZMA; that
    Category I (CRZI) included the area that were ecologically
E   sensitive and important; and that the Government of India,
    in exercise of powers under sub-section (1) and (3) of s.
    3 of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 had notified
    KCZMA as the authority for the implementation of the
    provisions of Notifications 1991 as well as 2011. High
F   Court dismissed the petitions and directed demolition of
    illegal construction. Hence the present petitions. The
    petitioners inter alia contended that the writ petitions,
    since included questions of facts, the High Court should
    not have decided the same and instead should have
    referred the matter to the National Green Tribunal.
G
          Dismissing the Special Leave Petitions, the Court

       HELD: 1. The High Court has rightly entertained the
  writ petition taking into consideration the larger public
H intereft and it is not correct to say that the matter should
                             ,•
  VMMIKA ISLAND (GREEN LAGOON RESORT) v.               967
              UNION OF INDIA

have been referred to the National Green Tribunal, in the     A
facts and circumstances of the case, especially when the
petitioner itself, has invoked the jurisdiction of the High
Court. [Para 8] [975-F-G]

       2.1. Vettilla Thuruthu Island is in the Vembanad Lake B
  in the State of Kerala. Vembanad Lake plays an important
  role in the ecology and economy of the South-West Coast
  of India. Vembanad lake, along with adjacent Kol lands,
  wetland, is a complex system of backwaters, mar!!hes,
  lagoons, mangrove forests, reclaimed land and an
  intricate network of natural, manmade canals etc. Lake is C
  fed by six rivers falling from Western Ghats: Achenkovil,
  Pampa, Meenachil, Manimala, Muvattupazha and Periyar.
  Vemb~nad Lake is declared as a Ramsar Site in the year ·
. 2002. Ramsar list was published in response to Article 2.1
  of the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971 ). D
 -Wetlands included in the list acquire a new status at the
  national and international level and the Convention
  mission is the conservation and wise use of such
  Wetland, through local, regional and national actions and
  international cooperation as a contribution towards E
  achieving sustainable development. India is a signatory'
  to the Ramsar Convention. [Para 10] [976-B-E]

       2.2. Vembanad backwater has been defined as
 Critically Vulnerable Coastal Area (CVCA) as per             F
 Notificatin 2011. The Lake has immense conservation
 importance as it supports a large aquatic bio-diversity
 and the most important migrating birds' habitat.
 Vembanad Lake conserves as a habitat to a variety of fin
 and shell fish and a nursery of several species of aquatic   G
 life. Considering the fragile ecosystem of the wetland,
 deterioration of water quality and consequent damage to
 aquatic organisms and the shrinkage of Vembanad Lake,
 this wetland system was included in the National Lake
 Conservation Programme (for short "NLCP") by the
                                                              H
    968    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2013] 17 S.C.R.


A National River Conservation Authority under the MoEF.
  State of Kerala has also decided to establish Vembanad
  Eco-Development Authority towards implementation of
  project for restoration and re-grneration of Vembanad
  Lake. The shrinkage of Vembanad Lake as a result of
B land reclamation, has been the most damaging
  environmental consequence of various human
  interventions. Vembanad Lake, it is well known, is
  undergoing severe environmental degradation due to
  increased human interventions which is of serious
c concern for the State of Kerala as well as the country at
  large. [Para 11] [976-E-H; 977-A-8]

       2.3. There are several small islands in and around
  Vembanad Lake, the protection of them is of considerable
  importance. Proper legal framework for protecting and
D conserving the lake and its resources, regulation of
  tourism, construction of resorts on the banks, industrial,
  domestic, agriculture pollution etc. calls for urgent
  attention. [Para 13] [977-C-D]
E     2.4. CRZ notification was issued by MoEF in February
  1991 as a part of the Environment Protection Act of 1986
  with an object to protect the coastal area from eroding
  and to preserve its natural resources. Under Notification
  1991, the entire coastal stretch from the lowest low tide
F to highest high tide line and the coastal land within 500
  m from the high tide line on the landward side is termed
  as CRZ. CRZ is classified into four categories depending
  on the sensitivity of the zones and prohibited and
  regulated activities have been listed for each zone. Later,
  a Notification dated 18.8.1994 was issued making six
G amendments to the main notification and those were
  made on the basis of the report submitted by the 8.8.
  Vohra Committee whicti was set up by the Central
  Government. It was noticed that having issued the main
  Notification, no foll?w-up action was taken either by the
H
  VAAMIKA ISLAND (GREEN LAGOON RESORT) v.                 969
               UNION OF INDIA

coastal States, Union Territories or by the Central              A
Government. The provisions of the main Notification
appeared to have been ignored and violated with
impunity and there was complete laxity in the
implementation of the Act and other related statutes
including the preparation of the Coastal Management              B
Plans by the various Coastal States. [Para 15] [977-G-H;
978-A-D]
    Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Uniorr of India
(1996) 5 SCC 281: 1996 (1) Suppl. SCR 507 - relied on.
                                                                 c
      2.5. The Central Government, following the directions
. given by this Court as well as in exercise of its powers
  conferred by Sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 3 of the
  Act, constituted KCZMA vide its notification dated
  21.7.2008 which was published in the Gazette of India          o
  :Extraordinary Part II. The Authority has been entrusted
  with the power to examine the proposals for changes or
  modification in classification of CRZ areas and in CRZMP
  received from the State Government and to make specific
  recommendations to the National Coastal Zone                   E
  Management Authority. It has also the power to deal with
  environmental issues relating to CRZ which may be
  referred to it by the State Government, the National
  Coastal Zone Management Authority or the Central
  Government. The Authority is also entrusted with the
                                                                 F
  power to identify ecologically sensitive areas in the CRZ
  and to formulate area-specific management plans for
  such identified areas. The Authority is also empowered
  to identify coastal areas highly vulnerable to erosion or
  degradation and formulate area-specific management
  plans for such identified areas. The authority is further      G
  obliged to submit the plans prepared by it to the National
  Coastal Zone Management Authority for examination and
  its approval. Various other powers have also been
  entrusted to KCZMA by the above mentioned notification.
  [Para 16] [978-F-H; 979-A-C]                                   H
    970    SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2013] 17 S.C.R.


A      2.6. CZMP, 1995 of the State shows the entire Vettila
  Thuruthu as FP (Fig.1 :Map No. 32A of CZMP). CZMP
  described FP as : another fish spawning/breeding
  ground and these are shallow water bodies adjoining the
  backwater system where certain species of fish are
s grown in l,arge numbers. The 50m belt adjoining it is also
  demarcated as CRZ-1, since this area is low lying, it is
  likely to be inundated due to Sea Level Rise (SLR).
  Hence, the entire Vettila Thuruthu is described as CRZ-1
  as per Notification 1991 and, as per Notification 2011, it
c is described as either CRZ-1, CRZ-111 or CRZ-IV. New
  constructions are not permitted in CRZ-1, the No
  Development Zone of CRZ-111 and in CRZ-IV. Repairs of
  existing structures can be permitted in No Development
  Zone of CRZ-111 subject to conditions for permissible
  activities as per the Notification. Tourism activity is also
0
  not permitted in the No Development Zone of CRZ-111 or
  CRZ-1. CRZ for Kerala in CRZ 2011 also prohibits new
  construction within 50 mtr. from High Tide Line and only
  dwelling units of local communities could be repaired or
E re-constructed. [Paras 17 & 18] [979-D-G]

       2.7. CRZ 2011 has been made applicable with effect
  from 06.01.2011. CZMP is being prepared on CRZ 2011,
  at that time the plan prepared on the basis of 1991
  Notification would be 'in force'. Coastal Plan prepared on
F the basis of 1991 Notification, clearly shows Vettila
  Thuruthu as 'FP'. The view of the High Court that islands
  cQ.!!ld be coastal stretches of river or backwater or
  backwater islands in Kerala are clearly covered by CRZ-
  1 is correct. It cannot fall under either on CRZ-111 or CRZ-
G IV. The High Court that even before the Salinity Test was
  incorporated in the year 2002, reliance was placed on that
  test, on the basis Of 5 ppt, which was made as per
  standard measurements technique in Pails per thousand
  is also endorsed. Satellite imagery is also is one of the
H
  VAAMIKA ISLAND (GREEN LAGOON RESORT) v.               971
               UNION OF INDIA

  best scientific indicators to know, when was the A
  construction effected in violation of CRZ which has been
  correctly applied in this case. Therefore, there is no'
  illegality in the Map prepared by CZMP as well as the
  techniques employed to ascertain works/constructions
· have been made in violation of CRZ 1991 as well as 2011. s
  [Paras 20 and 211 [980-C-F]

      2.8. The Petitioner had effected the construction in
 violation of the provisions of Notifications 1991 and 2011
 as well as Map 32A, so found by the High Court. The High
 Court has dealt with the issue pointing out that so far as C
      '
 buildings  which have been constructed by the petitioner
 during the currency of the Notification issued in 1991 are
 concerned, they are clearly in violation of this Notification,
 hence, action has to be taken for the removal of the same.
 The Director of Panchayat also vide letters dated 7.3.1995, D
 17.7.1996 directed all the Panchayats to strictly follow the
 provisions of CRZ Notification which it was found, not
 followed by granting permission. The High Court has
 also found on facts that reconstruction work appeared
 to have been done during the currency of Notification E
 2011 and two buildings (193/D and 193/E) were also
 constructed illegally. The High Court has also noticed
 another new construction underway. These all are factual
 findings which call for no interference by this Court. The
  High Court has clearly noticed that reconstruction work F
  has been done contrary to the 1991 as well as 2011
  Notification and the report of the Expert Committee
  constituted by the Kerala State Committee on Sciences
  Technology and Environment (KSCSTE) was accepted." .
  [Para 22] [980-G, H; 981-A-D]                                 G

       2.9. The direction was issued by the High Court
  taking into consideration the larger public interest and to
  save the Vembanad Lake which is an ecologically
  sensitive area, so proclaimed nationally and
                                                                H
    972      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 17 S.C.R.


A internationally. The Vembanad Lake is presently
  undergoing severe environmental degradation due to
  increased human intervention and recognizing the socio-
  economic importance of this water body, it has recently
  been scheduled under "vulnerable wetlands to be
B protected" and declared as CVCA. Thereofore, the
  directions given by the High Court are perfectly in order.
  Further, the directions given by the High Court in
  directing demolition of illegal construction effected during
  the currency of CRZ Notifications 1991 and 2011 are also
C correct. [Paras 23 and 24] [981-E-H]

        Piedade Filomena Gonsalves vs. State of Goa and Ors.
    (2004) 3 SCC 445: 2004 (2) SCR 1135 - relied on.

                         Case Law Reference:
D         1996 (1) Suppl. SCR 507 relied on              Para 15
          2004 (2) SCR 1135         relied on            Para 24
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : S.L.P. (Civil) Nos.
    24390-24391 of 2013.
E
        From the Judgment and Order dated 25.07.2013 of the
    High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in W. P. (C) No. 8299 of
    12S and W. P. (C) No. 2947 of 13P.

F        R. F. Nariman, U. U. Lalit, Arunabh Chowdhury, Rahul
    Pratap, Ankur Chawla, Sun-ii S., Vaibhav Tomer for the
    Petitioner.
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G      K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Vembanad Backwater is
  a Critically Vulnerable Coastal Area (for short "CVCA"), which
  supports exceptionally large biological diversity and constitutes
  the second largest wetlands in India. There are several islands
  in and around Vembanad Backwaters of which Vettilla Thuruthu
H is one amongst them.
  VAAMIKA ISLAND (GREEN LAGOON RESORT) v.                    973
    UNION OF INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

     2. SLP - petitioner preferred a Writ Petition (Civil) No. A
2947 of 2013 before the High Court bf Kerala seeking a
declaration that few items of its properties, described therein,
approximately 5.21 acres were Wrongly included in Map No.
32A of the Coastal Zone Management Plan (for short "CZMP")
prepared by the Kerala Coastal Zone Manc1gement Authority B
(fo} short "KCZMA") .and hence ultra vires the Coastal ·
Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 1991 (for short "Notification
1991 ") and CRZ Notification, 2011 (for short "Notification
2011 "). Petitioner has also sought for a declaration that
classification of its properties situated in Vettilla Thuruthu Island c
as Filtration Pond (for short "FP") and the consequent
categorization of the same under CRZ-1 is unconstitutional,
being ultra vires CRZ 1991 as well as CRZ 2011. The KCZMA
took up the stand that CZMP for the State of Kerala was
prepared based on the guidelines issued by the Ministry of 0
Environment and Forests (for short "MoEF"), Government of
India. CZMP (1995) of the State indicates the entire Vettilla
Thuruthu as FP (fig. 1 : Map No. 32A of the CZMP). Notification
1991, therefore, shows the entire Vettilla Thuruthu as CRZ-1, and
as per CRZ 2011, it is either CRZ-1, CRZ-111 or CRZ-IV.
                                                                      E
 Notification 2011 has defined Vembanad backwater as CVCA.

     3. MoEF also filed a statement before the High Court,
wherein it was stated that the CZMP for Kerala was prepared
by the MoEF on 27.9.1996 and that the construction of beach
resorts within CRZ area requires prior clearance from MoEF,          F
based on th.e recommendation of the KCZMA. Further, it was
also pointed out, that Category I (CRZ-1) includes the area that
are ecologically sensitive and important and that the
Government of India, in exercise of the powers conferred under
Sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 3 of the Environmental           G
(Protection) Act, 1986, has notified the KCZMA as the authority
for the implementation of the provisions of both Notification
1991 as well as 2011 Notification.

     4. We notice that another Writ Petition No. 8299 of 2012
                                                                     H
    974      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 17 S.C.R.


A was preferred by the 8th respondent herein seeking a Writ of
  Certiorari to quash the building permit dated 30.4.2012 issued
  to respondents 7 and 8 therein by the Panavalli Grama
  Panchayath. Direction was also sought for to direct the District
  Collector, Alappuzha to measure and demarcate the Kayal area
B stated to have been encroached by respondents 7 and 8 at
  Vettilla Thuruthu and to declare that all such encroachment as
  illegal construction and liable to be demolished and removed
  and to restore the area in its original position and for other
  consequential reliefs.
c       5. The Division Bench of the High Court heard the above
    mentioned writ petitions, along with few other writ petitions, and
    rendered the impugned judgment, against which these SLPs
    have been filed.

D       6. Shri R. F. Nariman, learned senior counsel appearing
   for the petitioner, submitted that inclusion of the petitioner's
   property within CRZ in terms of the CZMP and Map 32A
   prepared thereunder and :he classification of the same as FP
   and the categorization as CRZ-1 is illegal and ultra vires the
E 1991 as well as 2011 Notifications. Learned senior counsel
 · submitted that there are no "FPs" in the Island in question and
   no part of the island is in an area where fish are grown in large
   number and several families are staying on the island and,
   therefore, describing the same as FPs in 1995 is grossly
F arbitrary and illegal. Learned senior counsel submitted that
   although the Notification 1991 under Category I included areas
   to be inundated due to rise in sea level, Notification 2011 has
   deliberately and consciously excluded the said classification.
   Therefore, the categorization of the petitioner's property as
G CRZ-1 cannot be justified, both under the Notification 1991 ;IS
   well as 2011 Notification. Shri Nariman also pointed out that
   assuming that the same falls within Notification 1991, the same
   can be included only in Category IV and not under Category I.
   Shri Nariman also submitted that KCZMP was prepared in a

H
 VAAMIKA ISLAND (GREEN LAGOON RESORT) v.                    975
   UNION OF INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

haphazard and hasty manner without conducting any scientific A
study and that the satellite images cannot be blindly accepted
and the authenticity of such measures has to be substantiated
by verification of proper ground study and no notice was ever
issued to the petitioner before such a study was conducted.
                                                                  B
      7. Learned senior counsel also submitted that, by virtue of
the amendment in 2002, it was mandated that the distance to
which the tidal effects are experienced shall be determined
based on salinity concentration of 5 parts per thousand (pp!),
but no such salinity test was conducted. Salinity measurement, C
it was pointed out, ought to have been done for the purpose of
demarcation of the notification and, without such demarcation
and salinity measurement, Vettilla Thuruthu also cannot be
categorized so as to fall within CRZ. Learned senior counsel
also submitted that an ex parte report of Dr. Thomas was relied
upon by the High Court to hold that the construction effected D
by the petitioner was in violation of the 1991 as well as 2011
 Notification. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the
 High Court was grossly erred in placing reliance on the CZMP
 of 1996 which had lapsed in view of 2011 Notification. Learned
 senior counsel also submitted that, since the disputed questions E
 on facts are involved, the High Court ought to have referred the
 matter to the National Green Tribunal, which is an expert body,
 constituted under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.

     8. We are of the view that the High Court has rightly F
entertained the writ petition taking into consideration the larger
public interest and the contention that the matter should have
been referred to the National Green Tribunal cannot be
accepted, in the facts and circumstances of the case, especially
when the petitioner itself, has invoked the jurisdiction of the High G
Court.

    9. We have gone through the impugned judgment, the SLP
and the written statement filed by MoEF in Writ Petition No.
8299 of 2012, counter affidavit filed by KCZMA in WP (C) No.
                                                                    H
    976      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013) 17 S.C.R.


A   2947 of 2013 before the High Court and the report of Dr. K. V.
    Thomas of GESS and Dr. Kokkal, Director, KSCSTE.

          10. We are, in this case, concerned with an Island named
    Vettilla Thuruthu in the Vembanad Lake in the State of Kerala.
    Vembanad Lake plays an important role in the ecology and
8
    economy of the South-West Coast of India. Vembanad lake,
    along with adjacent Kol lands, wetland, is a complex system of
    backwaters, marshes, lagoons, mangrove forests, reclaimed
    land and an intricate network of natural, manmade canals etc.
    Lake is fed by six rivers falling from Western Ghats: Achenkovil,
C   Pampa, Meenachil, Manimala, Muvattupazha and Periyar.
    Vembanad Lake is declared as a Ramsar Site in the year
    2002. Ramsar list was published in response to Article 2.1 of
    the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971). Wetlands
    included in the list acquire a new status at the national and
D   international level and the Convention mission is the
    conservation and wise use of such Wetland, through local,
    regional and national actions and international cooperation as
    a contribution towards achieving sustainable development.
    India is a signatory to the Ramsar Convention.
E
        11. Vembanad backwater has been defined as a CVCA
  as per Notificatin 2011. The Lake has immense conservation
  importance as it supports a large aquatic biodiversity and the
  most important migrating birds' h~bitat. Vembanad Lake
F
  conserves as a habitat to a variety of fin and shell fish and a
  nursery of several species of aquatic life. Considering the
  fragile ecosystem of the wetland, deterioration of water quality
  and consequent damage to aquatic organisms and the
  shrinkage of Vembanad Lake, this wetland system was
  included in the National Lake Conservation Programme (for
G short "NLCP") by the National River Conservation Authority
  under the MoEF. State of Kerala has also decided to establish
  Vembanad         Eco-Development         Authority     towards
  implementation of project for restoration and re-generation of
  Vembanad Lake. The shrinkage of Vembanad Lake as a result
H
 VAAMIKA ISLAND (GREEN LAGOON RESORT) v.                    977
   UNION OF !NOIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

of land reclamation, has been the most damaging environmental A
consequence of various human interventions. Vembanad Lake,
it is well known, is undergoing severe environmental
degradation due to increased human interventions which is of
serious concern for the State of Kerala as well as the country
~~~-                                                                B
     12. We have referred the above aspects only to highlight
the importance of Vembanad Lake, which has got national and
international recognition, and is one of the most productive eco-
system.
                                                                    c
     13. We have several small islands in and around
Vembanad Lake, the protection of them is of considerable
importance. Proper legal framework for protecting and
conserving the lake and its resources, regulation of tourism,
construction of resorts on the banks, industrial, domestic, D
agriculture pollution etc. calls for urgent attention. The High
Court, while dealing with writ petition No. 8299 of 2012, has
noticed that some action has been initiated against the
company under the Land Conservancy Act and that the High
Court has directed to proceed with that action in accordance E
with law, leaving it open to the petitioner to raise all their
contentions before the authorities.

      14. We are, in these petitions, primarily concerned with the
question as to the legality or otherwise of Map 32A of CZMP
and the inclusion of th•e petitioner's property in the Island of F
Vettilla Thuruthu in the map and the question as to whether there
is any illegality in the preparation of Map and whether the same
is ultra vires Notifications 1991 and 2011.

     15. CRZ notification was issued by MoEF in February G
1991 as a part of the Environmental Protection Act of 1986 with
an object to protect the coastal area from eroding and to
preserve its natural resources. Under Notification 1991, the
entire coastal stretch from the lowest low tide to highest high
                                                                    H
    978      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 17 S.C.R.

A   tide line and the coastal land within 500 m from the high tide
    line on the landward side is termed as CRZ. CRZ is classified
    into four categories depending on the sensitivity of the zones
    and prohibited and regulated activities have been listed for each
    zone. Later, a notification dated 18.8.1994 was issued making
B   six amendments to the main notification and those.were made
    on the basis of the report submitted by the B.B. Vohra
    Committee which was set up by the Central Government. It was
    noticed that having issued the main notification, no follow-up
    action was taken either by the coastal States, Union Territories
c   or by the Central Government. The provisions of the main .
    Notification appeared to have been ignored and violated with
    impunity and there was complete laxity in the implementation
    of the Act and other related statutes including the preparation ·
    of the Coastal Management Plans by the various Coastal
    States. In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of
0
    India (1996) 5 SCC 281, this Court elaborately dealt with the
    scope of CRZ-1, CRZ-11, CRZ-111 and CRZ-IV and noted with
    concern the delay on the part of the various States in not
    implementing the main notification as well as not preparing the
    Coastal Management Plans for proper implementation of
E   Notifications 1991 as well as 1994. The Court directed the
    Central Government to set up, under Section 3 of the
    Environmental Protection Act, State Coastal Management
    Authorities in each State or Zone and also the National Coastal
    Management Authority.
F
        16. The Central Government, following the directions given
   by this Court as well as in exercise of its powers conferred by .
   Sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 3 of the Act, constituted •
   KCZMA vide its notification dated 21.7.2008 which was
G published in the Gazette of India :Extraordinary Part II. The
  ·Authority has been entrusted with the power to examine the
   proposals for changes or modification in classification of CRZ
   areas and in CRZMP received from the State Government and
   to make specific recommendations to the National Coastal
H Zone1f'lanagement Authority. It has also the power to deal with
 VAAMIKA ISLAND (GREEN LAGOON RESORT) v.                     979
   UNION OF INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

environmental issues relating to CRZ which may be referred to A
it by the State Government, the National Coastal Zone
Management Authority or the Central Government. The
Authority is also entrusted with the power to identify_,
ecologically sensitive areas in the CRZ and to formulate area-
specific management plans for such identified areas. The B
Authority is also empowered to identify coastal areas highly
vulnerable to erosion or degradation and formulate area-
specific management plans for such identified areas. The
authority is further obliged to. submit the plans prepared by it
to the National Coastal Zone Management Authority for c
examination and its approval. Various other powers have also
been entrusted to KCZMA by the above mentioned notification.

      17. CZMP, 1995 of the State shows the entire Vettila
Thuruthu as FP (Fig.1 :Map No. 32A of CZMP). CZMP
described FP as-: another fish spawning/breeding ground and          D
these are shallow water bodies adjoining the backwater system
wh~re certain species of fish are grown in large numbers. The
50m· belt adjoining it is also demarcated as CRZ-1, since this
area is low lying, it is likely to be inundated due to Sea Level
 Rise (SLR). Hence, the entire Vettila Thuruthu is described as      E
 CRZ-1 as per "Notification 1991 and, as per Notification 2011,
 it is described as either CRZ-1, CRZ-111 or CRZ-IV. New
 constructions are not permitted in CRZ-1, the No Development
 Zone of CRZ-111 and in CRZ-IV. Repairs of existing structures
 can be permitted in No Development Zone of CRZ-111 subject          F
 to conditions for permissible activities as per the notification.
 Tourism activity is also not permitted in the No Development
 Zone of CRZ-111 or CRZ-1.

    18. CRZ for Kerala in CRZ 2011 also prohibits new
construction within 50 mtr. from High Tide Line and only
                                                                     G.
dwelling units of local communities co.uld be repaired or re~
constructed.

     19. KCZMP was prepared, as alre~dy indicated, based
                                                                     H
    980      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2013] 17 S.C.R.


A on the guidelines of MoEF, taking care of the Maps prepared
  by the Survey of India (Government of India) and cadastral maps
  prepared by the Survey Department of Kerala Government were
  used as base map for oreparation of CZMP of the State. The
  area between Low Tide Line and High Tide Line is also CRZ-
B I. The FPs, as already indicated, are shallow water bodies
  which are spawning/breeding area of fishes and hence, as per
  notification, they are CRZ-1.

       20. CRZ 2011 has been made applicable with effect from
  06.01.2011. CZMP is being prepared on CRZ 2011, at that
C time the plan prepare.d on the basis of 1991 Notification would
  be 'in force'. Coastal Plan prepared on the basis of 1991
  Notification, clearly shows Vettila Thuruthu as 'FP'. We do
  concur with the view of the High Court that islands could be .
  coastal stretches of river or backwater or backwater islands in
D Kerala are clearly covered by CRZ-1. It cannot fall under either
  on CRZ-111 or CRZ-IV. We also fully endorse the view of the High
  Court that even before the Salinity Test was incorporated in the
  year 2002, reliance was placed on that test, on the basis of 5
  ppt, which was made as per standard measurements technique
E in Pails per thousand. Satellite imagery is also, in our view, is
  one of the best scientific indicators to know, when was the
  construction effected in violation of CRZ which, in our view, has
  been correctly applied in this case.

F       21. We, therefore, find no illegality in the Map prepared
    by CZMP as well as the techniques employed to ascertain
    works/constructions have been made in violation of CRZ 1991
    as well as 2011.

        22. the Petitioner had effected the construction in violation
G of the provisions of Notifications 1991 and 2011 as well as Map
  32A, so found by the High Court. Factual details of the same
  and where actually the portion of some of the properties of the
  petitioner in the Vettila Thuruthu will fall, has been elaborately
  dealt with by the High Court in its judgment in paragraphs 109
H
  VAAMIKA ISLAND (GREEN LAGOON RESORT) v.                   981
    UNION OF INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

to 1.19. We notice thatthe High Court has dealt with the issue A
pointing out that so far as buildings which have been
constructed by the petitioner during the currency of the
 notification issued in 1991 are concerned, they are clearly in
violation of this notification, hence, action has to be taken for
the removal of the same. The Director of Panchayat.also vide B
 letters dated 7.3.1995, 17.7.1996 directed all the Panchayats
to strictly follow the provisions of CRZ Notification which it was
found, not followed by granting permission. The High Court has
also found on facts that reconstruction work appeared to have.
 been done during the currency of Notification 2011 and two c
 buildings (193/D and 193/E) were also constructed illegally.
The High Court has also noticed another new construction
 underway. These all are factual findings which call for no
 interference by this Court. The High Court has clearly noticed
 that reconstruction work has been don.~ contrary to the 1991
                                                                   0
 as well as 2011 Notification and the· report of the Expert
 Committee constituted by the Kerala 'State Committee on
 Sciences Technology and Environment (KSCSTE) was
 accepted.

       23. We are of the considered view that the above direction   E
  was issued by the High Court taking into consideration the
  larger public interest and to save the Vembanad Lake which
  is an ecologically sensitive area, so proclaimed nationally and
. internationally. The Vembanad Lake is presently undergoing
  severe environmental degradation due to increased human           F
  intervention and, as already indicated, recognizing the socio-
  economic importance of this water body, it has recently been
  scheduled under "vulnerable wetlands to be protected" and
  declared as CVCA. We are of the view that the directions given
  by the High Court are perfectly in order in the above mentioned   G
  perspective.                                  ·

      24. Further, the directions given by the High Court in
 directing demolition of illegal construction effected during the
 currency of CRZ Notifications 1991 and 2011 are perfectly in
                                                                    H
    982       SUPREME COURT REPORTS             (2013] 17 S.C.R.


A tune with the decision of this Court in Piedade Filomena
  Gonsalves v. State of Goa and Others (2004) 3 SCC 445,
  wherein this Court has held that such notifications have been
  issued in the interest of protecting environment and ecology in
  the coastal area and the construction raised in violation of such
B regulations cannot be lightly condoned.

        25. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the
    judgment of the High Court. The Special Leave Petitions are
    accordingly dismissed.

C   Kalpana K. Tripathy                             SLPs dismissed.