THE KERALA STATE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITYversusTHE STATE OF KERALA MARADU MUNICIPALITY & ORS.

                           [2019] 8 S.C.R. 625                              625


    THE KERALA STATE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT                                A
                    AUTHORITY
                                   v.
 THE STATE OF KERALA MARADU MUNICIPALITY & ORS.
                (Civil Appeal Nos. 4784-4785 of 2019)                       B
                            MAY 08, 2019
           [ARUN MISHRA AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
       Environmental Laws : Coastal areas notified as CRZ-III –
Appellant authority empowered to deal with the environmental issues
                                                                            C
relating to the notified CRZ – Allegation that there was violation in
issuance of building permits by the Panchayats – The dispute was
that respondent builders were carrying out construction activities
on the shores of the backwaters in Ernakulam in the State of Kerala
which supports large biologically diversity and constitutes one of
the largest wetlands in India – The area in which the respondents           D
carried out construction activities is part of a tidally influenced
water body and the construction activities in those areas are strictly
restricted under the provisions of CRZ Notifications – Government
directed concerned bodies to revoke all the flawed building permits
exercising its powers under rr.16 and 23 of Kerala Municipality
                                                                            E
Building Rules, 1999 – Notice issued to the builders asking to show
cause why the building permits issued to them be not cancelled –
Writ petition against the notice was allowed on the ground that permit
holders could not be taken to task for the failure of local authorities
in complying with the statutory provisions and notifications –
Appellant authority filed the instant appeal – A Committee was              F
constituted by this court which gave findings that the area in dispute
fell in CRZ-III of Coastal Zone Regulations – Held: With respect to
CRZ-III, the relevant notification dated 19.2.1991 indicated that
the area of 200 meters from High Tide Line is no development zone
and no construction was permissible within this zone except for
                                                                            G
repairs of the authorized structures not exceeding existing FSI – It
is necessary for the local authority to follow the restrictions imposed
by the notification, as amended from time to time – Thus, it was not
open to the local authority, i.e., Panchayat, in view of the notification
of 1991 to grant any kind of permission without the concurrence of
                                                                            H
                                  625
626            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A     the appellant authority – Admittedly, Panchayat did not forward
      any such applications for building permissions – As such, once a
      due inquiry was held by the Committee, there was no escape from
      the conclusion that the area fell within CRZ-III and it was wholly
      impermissible and unauthorised construction within the prohibited
      area – Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 – rr.16 and 23 –
B
      Environment Protection Act, 1986.
             Judicial notice: Judicial notice taken of recent devastation
      in Kerala which had taken place due to heavy rains compounded
      by such unbridled construction activities resulting in colossal loss
      of human life and property due to such unauthorised activity – In
C     the instant case, permission granted by the Panchayat was illegal
      and void – No such development activity could have taken place in
      prohibited zone – In view of the findings of the Enquiry Committee,
      directions passed to remove all the structures within a period of one
      month – Environment Protection Act, 1986 – Kerala Municipality
D     Building Rules, 1999 – rr.16 and 23.
            Piedade Filomena Gonsalves v. State of Goa (2004) 3
            SCC 445 : [2004] 2 SCR 1135 ; Vaamika Island (Green
            Lagoon Resort) v. Union of India & Ors. (2013) 8 SCC
            760 – relied on.
E           Ratheesh v. State of Kerala 2013 (3) KLT 840
            – approved.
            Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India
            (1996) 5 SCC 281 : [1996] 1 Suppl. SCR 507
            – referred to.
F
                             Case Law Reference
      [1996] 1 Suppl. SCR 507        referred to             Para 3
      [2004] 2 SCR 1135              relied on               Para 4
      (2013) 8 SCC 760               relied on               Para 14
G
      2013 (3) KLT 840               approved                Para 16




H
  THE KERALA STATE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT                                    627
AUTH. v. THE STATE OF KERALA MARADU MUNICIPALITY

       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4784-                 A
4785 of 2019.
       From the Judgment and Order dated 02.06.2015 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.A. No. 132 of 2013 and order dated
11.11.2015 in Review Petition No. 787 of 2015.
       With                                                                   B
       Civil Appeal Nos. 4790-4793, 4786-4789 of 2019.
       Romy Chacko, Shapti Chand J., Vishant Singh, Advs. for the
Appellant.
       V. Giri, Jayanth Muthraj, Sr. Advs., Ranjan Kumar, Mohammed
Sadique T.R., Anu K. Joy, Amith Krishnan, Alim Anvar, G. Prakash,             C
Jishnu M.L., Mrs. Priyanka Prakash, Mrs. Beena Prakash, M.T. George,
Avishkar Singhvi, Nipun Katyal, Advs. for the Respondents.
       The following Order of the Court was passed
                               ORDER
       1. Leave granted.                                                      D
       2. Applications for intervention are allowed.
       3. The appeals have been filed by the Kerala State Coastal Zone
Management Authority aggrieved by the judgment and order dated
11.11.2016 passed by the High Court in Writ Appeal No.132 of 2013 and
other connected appeals.                                                      E
       4. The appellant authority has been constituted by the Government
of India in compliance with the directions issued by this Court in Indian
Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India [(1996) 5 SCC
281] as well as in the exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3
of the Environment Protection Act, 1986. The appellant authority is           F
empowered to deal with the environmental issues relating to the notified
Coastal Regulations Zones (in short, ‘CRZ’). Construction activities in
the notified CRZ areas can be permitted only in consultation with and
prior concurrence of the appellant authority. It is the binding duty of the
local self-Government, the competent authority before issuing building
permits to forward an application for building permission to the appellant    G
authority along with the relevant record. The appellant authority has
issued circulars to all Gram Panchayats, Municipalities, and Municipal
Corporations directing them to follow the provisions of CRZ notifications
and to act in accordance with the procedures provided in the notifications.
                                                                              H
628             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A            5. The decision of this Court in Piedade Filomena Gonsalves v.
      State of Goa [(2004) 3 SCC 445] has also been relied upon which explains
      the significance of CRZ notifications in the interest of protecting
      environment and ecology in the coastal area and the construction raised
      in violation of the regulations cannot be lightly condoned. The construction
      activities of the respondent builders are on the shores of the backwaters
B
      in Ernakulam in the State of Kerala which supports exceptionally large
      biological diversity and constitutes one of the largest wetlands in India.
             6. The area in which the respondents have carried out construction
      activities is part of the tidally influenced water body and the construction
      activities in those areas are strictly restricted under the provisions of the
C     CRZ Notifications. Uncontrolled construction activities in these areas
      would have devastating effects on the natural water flow that may
      ultimately result in severe natural calamities. The expert opinions suggest
      that the devastating floods faced by Uttarakhand in recent years and
      Tamil Nadu this year are the immediate result of uncontrolled construction
D     activities on river shores and unscrupulous trespass into the natural path
      of backwaters. The Coastal Zone Management Plan (in short, ‘CZMP’)
      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.
E            7. As per the appellant, these 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. The Vigilance Section of
      Local Self Government Department, Government of Kerala detected
      these violations and anomalies in the issue of building permits and hence
F     directed the concerned bodies to revoke all the flawed building permits
      exercising its powers under Rules 16 and 23 of the Kerala Municipality
      Building Rules, 1999 (in short, referred to as ‘the Rules of 1999’).
             8. A show cause notice was issued under Rule 16 of the Rules of
      1999, asking the builders to show cause why the building permit issued
G     to them be not cancelled. Writ Petitions were filed questioning the same.
      The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions. The Division Bench
      dismissed the appeals. The High Court has observed that the permit
      holders cannot be taken to task for the failure of local authorities in

H
  THE KERALA STATE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT                                     629
AUTH. v. THE STATE OF KERALA MARADU MUNICIPALITY

complying with the statutory provisions and notifications. Review petitions    A
were also dismissed. Hence, the appeals by special leave have been
preferred.
      9. After hearing the appeals for two days, we constituted the
Committee to hear the parties. Following is the order passed by this
Court on 27.11.2018 :                                                          B
      “1. The writ petitions filed questioning the show cause notice dated
      4.6.2007 issued for the removal of the buildings, which according
      to show cause notice were falling within the prohibited area of
      CRZ Category. Various violations were mentioned in the show
      cause notice. Without availing the remedy of filing reply to the         C
      show cause notice, writ petitions were filed directly in the High
      Court. The Single Bench of the High Court vide its judgment and
      order dated 10.09.2012, allowed the writ petition. Aggrieved
      thereby, the Municipality preferred writ appeals before the Division
      Bench, which were dismissed by the impugned judgment and order
      dated 02.06.2015.                                                        D

      2. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,
      as there is no categorical finding recorded either by the Single
      Bench or by the Division Bench that whether the area in question
      is in CRZ Category-III, Category-I or Category-II. It was claimed
      by the petitioner before the Single Bench that they fell within the      E
      CRZ Category-II, whereas the case set up by Coastal Zone
      Management Authority in this Court is that area is of CRZ
      CategoryIII. We deem it appropriate to call for the findings on the
      aforesaid aspect.
      3. We constitute a Three-Member Committee consisting of the              F
      Secretary to the Local Self Government Department, the Chief
      Municipal officer of the concerned Municipality and the Collector
      of the District, to hear the objections and to give a finding in terms
      of Notification dated 19th February 1991.
      4. Let the Committee hear the affected parties as well as Kerala         G
      State Coastal Zone Management Authority and State Government
      and consider the matter as submitted by the parties and send a
      report to this Court as to legality of construction and precisely in

                                                                               H
630            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A           which category the area in question is to be categorized and whether
            building is in prohibited zone. Let the exercise be done within a
            period of two months and a report be submitted to this Court.
            5. Let the report be submitted covering the aspect that may be
            urged by the parties as to the legality of construction.”
B             10. The aforesaid order was passed in order to cut short the
      litigation in respect of the show cause notice issued by the authorities as
      the only question to be decided was as to whether the area falls in CRZ-
      III of Coastal Zone Regulations. We have heard the learned counsel at
      length again after receipt of the report. The Committee consisted of the
C     following members :
              1. K. Gopalakrishna Bhat, IAS
                   Local Self Government (Rural)
                   In-Charge.
              2. K. Mohammed Y. Safirulla, AIA,
D                  District Collector,
                   Ernakulam.
              3. Subhash P.K.,
                   Municipal Secretary,
                   Maradu Municipality.
E             11. The Committee has given the opportunity of hearing and has
      dealt with the case set up by all the stakeholders in extensive
      detail. Following findings and conclusion have been recorded by the
      Committee :
            “The Committee evaluated all arguments raised by the parties
F           and KCZMA, existing Rules and Statutes and examined the Google
            map produced at the time of the meeting.
            The findings of the committee are as follows:
            1) Marad Panchayat which was formed in 1953 was upgraded
            into a municipality in November 2010.
G           2) The Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP of Kerala
            currently applicable is the one that was approved in 1996. As per
            the said CZMP, Marad has been marked as Panchayat area and
            hence falls in the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) category of
            CRZ-III. The area is represented in the Map numbers 33, 33A
H
  THE KERALA STATE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT                                   631
AUTH. v. THE STATE OF KERALA MARADU MUNICIPALITY

    and 34 of CZMP 1996. These maps are attached as Annexure 1               A
    and 2. A mosaic of the three maps showing the Marad area is
    attached as Annexure 3. Since the Panchayat has been upgraded
    to Municipality in the year 2010, the same has been shown as
    CRZ-II category in the draft CZMP prepared as per the CRZ
    Notification 2011 and submitted to the MoEF&CC of Government
                                                                             B
    of India recently. Until the Government of Kerala/KCZMA
    receives a communication from the Government of India on the
    approval of the CZMP draft submitted, the CZMP of 1996 stands
    valid. Hence, as on date, Maradu area being a backwater island
    the provisions as detailed below is applicable after 6th January
    2011 i.e., the date on which Government of India published Coastal       C
    Zone Management Plan (CZMP).
    i) The islands within the backwaters shall have 50 mts width from
    the High Tide Line on the landward side as the CRZ area;
    ii) within 50 mts from the HTL of these backwater islands existing
    dwelling units of local communities may be repaired or                   D
    reconstructed however no new construction shall be permitted;
    iii) beyond 50 mts from the HTL on the landward side of backwater
    islands, dwelling units of local communities may be constructed
    with the prior permission of the Grama panchayat;
                                                                             E
    iv) foreshore facilities such as fishing jetty, fish drying yards, net
    mending yard, fishing processing by traditional methods, boat
    building yards, ice plant, boat repairs and the like, may be taken
    up within 50 mts width from HTL of these backwater islands.
                           CONCLUSION                                        F
      The Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) of Kerala
    currently applicable is the one that was approved in 1996. As per
    the said CZMP Maradu has been marked as Panchayat area and
    hence falls in the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) category of
    CRZ III. Maradu Panchayat has been upgraded to Municipality
                                                                             G
    in the year 2010 and hence in the draft CZMP prepared as per
    CRZ Notification 2011, it is shown as CRZ II category. The new
    draft CZMP is submitted to MoEF & CC of Government of India
    for approval. Until Government of India approved the draft
    notification CZMP 1996 stands valid.”
                                                                             H
632            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A            12. It is apparent that at the relevant time when the construction
      has been raised by the respondents in the matters, the area was within
      CRZ-III. With respect to CRZ-III, the relevant notification dated
      19.2.1991 indicates that the area of 200 meters from the High Tide Line
      is no development zone. No construction shall be permitted within this
      zone except for repairs of the authorized structures not exceeding existing
B
      FSI. The notification dated 19.02.1991 relating to CRZ-III is extracted
      below:-
            “iii. The design and construction of buildings shall be consistent
            with the surrounding landscape and local architectural style.
C           i. 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, existing plinth
            area, and existing density, and for permissible activities under the
            notification including facilities essential for such activities. An
D           authority designated by the State Government/Union Territory
            Administration may permit construction of facilities for water
            supply, drainage, and sewerage for requirements of local
            inhabitants. However, the following uses may be permissible in
            this zone agriculture, horticulture, gardens, pastures, parks,
E           playfields, forestry and salt manufacture from sea water.
            ii.Development of vacant plots between 200 and 500 meters of
            High Tide Line in designated areas of CRZ-III with prior approval
            of Ministry of Environment and Forests (MEF permitted for
            construction of hotels/beach resorts for temporary occupation of
F           tourists/visitors subject to the conditions as stipulated in the
            guidelines at Annexure-II.
            iii. Construction/reconstruction of dwelling units between 200 and
            500 meters of the High Tide Line permitted so long it is within the
            ambit of traditional rights and customary uses such as existing
G           fishing villages and gaothans. Building permission for such
            construction/reconstruction will be subject to the conditions that
            the total number of dwelling units shall not be more than twice the
            number of existing units; total covered area on all floors shall not
            exceed 33 percent of the plot size; the overall height of construction

H
  THE KERALA STATE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT                                      633
AUTH. v. THE STATE OF KERALA MARADU MUNICIPALITY

      shall not exceed 9 meters and construction shall not be more than         A
      2 floors ground floor plus one floor. Construction is allowed for
      permissible activities under the notification including facilities
      essential for such activities. An authority designated by State
      Government/Union Territory Administration may permit
      construction of public rain shelters, community toilets, water
                                                                                B
      supply, drainage, sewerage, roads, and bridges. The said authority
      may also permit construction of schools and dispensaries, for local
      inhabitants of the area, for those panchayats the major part of
      which falls within CRZ if no other area is available for construction
      of such facilities.
      iv. Reconstruction/alterations of an existing authorised building         C
      permitted subject to (I) to (iii) above.”
     13. It is also relevant to take note of Rule 23(4) of the Rules of
1999 which is extracted below:-
      “23(4) Any land development or redevelopment or building                  D
      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.”
                                                                                E
       14. 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. Admittedly, Panchayat has
not forwarded any such applications for building permissions and there          F
is no concurrence or permission granted by the Kerala State Coastal
Zone Management Authority. As such, we find that once a due inquiry
has been held by the Committee, there is no escape from the conclusion
that the area fell within CRZ-III, it was wholly impermissible and
unauthorised construction within the prohibited area. We also take              G
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.

                                                                                H
634           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A          15. This Court in Vaamika Island (Green Lagoon Resort) vs.
      Union of India & Ors. [(2013) 8 SCC 760], has observed:-
           “26. The petitioner had affected the construction in violation of
           the provisions of 1991 and 2011 Notifications as well as Map
           No.32-A, so found by the High Court. The factual details of the
B          same and where actually the portion of some of the properties of
           the petitioner in Vettila Thuruthu will fall has been elaborately
           dealt with by the High Court in its judgment in paras 109 to 119.
           We notice that the High Court has dealt with the issue pointing
           out that so far as buildings which have been constructed by the
           petitioner during the currency of the Notification issued in 1991
C          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, 17.7.1996
           directed all the panchayats to strictly follow the provisions of CRZ
           notification which it was found not followed by granting permission.
D          The High Court has also found on facts that reconstruction work
           appeared to have been done during the currency of the 2011
           Notification 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
E          noticed that reconstruction work has been done contrary to 1991
           as well as 2011 Notifications and the report of the Expert
           Committee constituted by the Kerala State Committee on Sciences
           Technology and Environment (KSCSTE) was accepted.
           27. We are of the considered view that the above direction was
F          issued by the High Court taking into consideration the larger public
           interest and to save Vembanad Lake which is an ecologically
           sensitive area, so proclaimed nationally and internationally.
           Vembanad Lake is presently undergoing severe environmental
           degradation due to increased human intervention and, as already
G          indicated, recognising the socio-economic importance of this
           waterbody, 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 abovementioned perspective.

H
  THE KERALA STATE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT                                       635
AUTH. v. THE STATE OF KERALA MARADU MUNICIPALITY

     28. Further, the directions given by the High Court in directing            A
     demolition of illegal construction effected during the currency of
     the 1991 and 2011 CRZ Notifications are perfectly in tune with
     the decisions of this Court in Piedade Filomena Gonsalves v.
     State of Goa [(2004) 3 SCC 445], wherein this Court has held
     that such notifications have been issued in the interest of protecting
                                                                                 B
     environment and ecology in the coastal area and the construction
     raised in violation of such regulations cannot be lightly condoned.”
      16. In Piedade Filomena Gonsalves vs. State of Goa & Ors.
[(2004) 3 SCC 445], this Court has observed :
     “4. We do not think that any fault can be found with the judgment           C
     of the High Court and the appellant can be allowed any relief in
     exercise of the jurisdiction conferred on this Court under Article
     136 of the Constitution. Admittedly, the construction which the
     appellant has raised is without permission. Assuming it for a moment
     that the construction, on demarcation and measurement afresh
     and on HTL being determined, is found to be beyond 200 meters               D
     of HTL, it is writ large that the appellant has indulged into
     misadventure of raising a construction without securing permission
     from the competent authorities. That apart, the learned counsel
     for the respondent, has rightly pointed out that the direction of the
     High Court in the matter of demarcation and determination of                E
     HTL is based on the amendment dated 18.8.1994 introduced in
     the notification dated 19.2.1991 entitled the Coastal Regulation
     Zone notification issued in exercise of the power conferred by
     section 3(1) and Section 3(2)(v) of the Environment Protection
     Act, 1986, while the appellant’s construction was completed before
     the date of the amendment and, therefore, the appellant cannot              F
     take benefit of the order dated 25.9.96 passed in writ petition No.
     102 of 1996.
     5. It is pertinent to note that during the pendency of the writ petition,
     the appellant had moved two applications, one of which is dated
     11.7.1995, for the purpose of regularisation of the construction in         G
     question. Goa State Coastal Committee for Environment-the then
     competent body constituted a sub-committee which inspected the
     site and found that the entire construction raised by the appellant
     fell within 200 meters of the HTL and the construction had been
                                                                                 H
636            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A           carried out on existing sand dunes. The Goa State Coastal
            Committee for Environment, in its meeting dated 20.10.1995, took
            a decision inter alia holding that the entire construction put up by
            the appellant was in violation of the Coastal Regulation Zone
            Notification.
B           6. 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. We do not think that the appellant is entitled
            to any relief. No fault can be found with the view taken by the
            High Court in its impugned judgment.”
C
            17. Further, reference has also been made to a decision of the
      Kerala High Court in Ratheesh v. State of Kerala [2013 (3) KLT 840].
      The same is extracted below :
            “98. However, we would rather rest our decision without
D           pronouncing on the validity of the permits as such. We have found
            that the Notification is applicable to the island, the island falls in
            CRZ-I and construction is impermissible. By merely getting a
            permit under the Building Rules, it cannot be in the region of any
            doubt that the company cannot arrogate to itself, the right to flout
            the terms of the Notification. We have already noticed Rule 23(4)
E           of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 and Rule 26(4) of
            the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011. In this case, we may
            also note that there is no permission sought from the authority. It
            is apposite to note that paragraph 3 (v) clearly mandates that for
            investment of Rs.5 crores and above, permission must be obtained
F           from the Ministry of Environment WP(C).NO.19564/11 &
            CON.CASES 21 and Forest. In this case, the investment of the
            company is far above Rs.5 crores. In respect of investments below
            Rs.5 crores, for activities which are not prohibited, permission
            must be obtained from the concerned authority in the State. The
            company has not made any such attempt at getting permission.
G           That apart, this is a case where, even if permission had been
            applied for, the terms of the Notification would stand in the way
            of any such permission being granted in so far as the island is
            treated as falling in CRZ-I. Construction of buildings as has been
            done by the company was absolutely impermissible. The fact that
H
  THE KERALA STATE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT                                   637
AUTH. v. THE STATE OF KERALA MARADU MUNICIPALITY

    in a situation where the construction activity was permissible under     A
    the Notification and if the company had obtained permit from the
    local body, would have made its activities legal, cannot avail the
    company for the reason that under the terms of the Notification,
    such permit obtained from the panchayat will be of little avail to it
    in the light of the nature of the restrictions brought about by the
                                                                             B
    Regulations in respect of CRZ-I in which zone the island falls.
    According to the WP(C).NO.19564/11 & CON.CASES 22
    panchayat, no doubt, the conditions have been imposed also as
    recommended by the Assistant Engineer who is alleged to have
    even visited the island. Whatever that be, as observed by us, in
    the light of the view we have taken, namely that the 1991                C
    Notification applies to the island, it is squarely covered by the
    same being included in CRZ-I and the constructions were begun
    even during the currency of the 1991 Notification. The conclusion
    is inescapable that it is in the teeth of the prohibition contained in
    the 1991 Notification and, therefore, it is palpably illegal.
                                                                             D
    XXX                         XXX                            XXX
    107. At this stage, we must deal with the argument raised before
    us by the company. It is submitted that a world-class resort has
    been put up which will promote tourism in a State like Kerala
    which does not have any industries as such and where tourism             E
    has immense potential and jobs will be created. It is submitted
    that the Court may bear in mind that the company is eco-friendly
    and if at all the Court is inclined to find against the company, the
    Court may, in the facts of this case, give direction to the company
    and the company will strictly abide by any safeguards essential
    for the preservation of environment.                                     F

    108. We do not think that this Court should be detained by such an
    argument. The Notification issued under the Environment
    (Protection) Act is meant to protect the environment and bring
    about sustainable development. It is the law of the land. It is meant
    to be obeyed and enforced. As held by the Apex Court,                    G
    construction in violation of the Coastal Regulation Zone Regulations
    are not to be viewed lightly and he who breaches its
    WP(C).NO.19564/11 & CON.CASES 24 terms does so at his
    own peril. The fait accompli of constructions being made which
                                                                             H
638              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A            are in the teeth of the Notification cannot present, but a highly
             vulnerable argument.”
            18. We find that the view taken by the Kerala High Court in the
      aforesaid decision is appropriate.
             19. In the instant case, permission granted by the Panchayat was
B     illegal and void. No such development activity could have taken place in
      prohibited zone. In view of the findings of the Enquiry, Committee, let
      all the structures be removed forthwith within a period of one month
      from today and compliance be reported to this Court.
             20. The appeals are, accordingly allowed with aforesaid direction.
C     Interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.


      Devika Gujral                                              Appeals allowed.



D




E




F




G




H