Disposed

Ashwathy K. G., v. Union of India

Kerala HC6 Jul 2023WP(C)/10317/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenging denial of building permit due to land falling in No Development Zone. Court held that involving competent authority to consider creek width and distance is acceptable. Writ petition disposed directing Grama Panchayat to refer matter to District Coastal Zone Management Authority for decision.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to refer matter to 4th respondent within two weeks intimating creek width; 4th respondent to decide within four weeks.

Ashwathy K. G., Vs Union of India — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 10317 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

ASHWATHY K. G.,
AGED 26 YEARS, W/O. ANEESHCHANDRAN, KANAVALLIPPADOM
HOUSE, CHITTOOR, ERANKULAM, PIN - 682027
BY ADVS.
SHERRY J. THOMAS
ANTONY NILTON REMELO
JOEMON ANTONY

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE, ROOM NO. A- 338, 3RD FLOOR, AGNI BLOCK, INDIRA PARYAVARAN BHAVAN, JOR BAGH ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110003

¶9

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE, 4TH FLOOR KSRTC BUS TERMINAL, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN – 695001

¶10

3 KERALA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, 4TH FLOOR KSRTC BUS TERMINAL, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN – 695001

¶11

4 THE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682030

¶12

5 THE SECRETARY, CHERANELLORE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, SOUTH CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM,KERALA, PIN – 682027

¶13

W.P(C) NO.10317 OF 2023

¶14

¶15

6 THE CHERANELLORE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THE CHERANELLORE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, SOUTH CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM,KERALA, PIN – 682027

¶16

7THE DISTRICT LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, AGRICULTURAL
OFFICER, 1ST FLOOR, KOCHI CORPORATION VYTTILA
SHOPPING COMPLEX, WEST SIDE OF VYTTILA JUNCTION,
SA ROAD, &, MAHAKAVI VAILOPPILLI RD, KOCHI,
KERALA, PIN - 682019

¶17

BY ADVS.
SRI.PRAKASH M.P., SC, KCZMA
SRI.T.K.AJITHKUMAR (VALATH)
SMT.DEVISREE G.P

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W.P(C) NO.10317 OF 2023

¶20

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Dated this the 6^th day of July, 2023

¶23

The petitioner is an inhabitant of Cheranalloor Grama Panchayat and holds 4.5 cents of property in Re-Survey No.173/18-3 of Kanayannur Taluk of Cheranalloor Village of Ernakulam District. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to direct the 6^th respondent-Panchayat to forward the application submitted through Ext.P3 to the 4^th respondent within a time frame by pointing out the width of the creek and distance to the petitioner’s plot.

¶24

The petitioner states that she wants to construct a new building in her property. The 6^th respondent is not granting Building Permit. Taking into consideration the Coastal Regulation Zone Notifications, the 6^th respondent-Panchayat is bound to forward the application of the petitioner to the 4^th respondentDistrict Coastal Zone Management Authority and to pass orders

¶25

W.P(C) NO.10317 OF 2023

¶26

4

¶27

in accordance with distance rule in Clause 8 III A of the CRZ 2011 Notification.

¶28

The petitioner would contend that as per CRZ (ii) of the introductory part of CRZ 2011, the CRZ shall apply to the land area between HTL to 100 Mts or width of the creek whichever is less on the landward side of tidal influenced water bodies that are connected to the sea. As per Clause 8 III A of the CRZ 2011, area upto 200 metres from HTL on the landward side in case of sea front and 100 metres along tidal influenced water bodies or width of the creek whichever is less is to be earmarked as “No Development Zone” (NDZ).

¶29

Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the 6^th respondent and resisted the writ petition. The Standing Counsel submitted that the competent authorities have issued a map under the CRZ regulations and the petitioner’s land falls within the ‘No Development Zone’ as per the plan. It is for the said reason that the application of the petitioner was not referred

¶30

W.P(C) NO.10317 OF 2023

¶31

¶32

to the CRZ authorities.

¶33

The Counsel for the petitioner would urge that there is a creek of 3 metres width near the land of the petitioner and therefore going by Clause 8 III A of the CRZ 2011, the petitioner’s property will not fall under the ‘No Development Zone’.

¶34

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Central Government Counsel representing the 1^st respondent, the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 2, 4 and 7 and the respective learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 3, 5 and 6.

¶35

Taking into consideration the argument of the petitioner that there is a 3 metres wide creek and that Clause 8 III A of the CRZ 2011 will not impinge upon the petitioner’s right to construct a new building in the area, I am of the view that this is a matter that can be considered by the 4^th respondent. Furthermore, it will be in the fitness of things that the issue be

¶36

W.P(C) NO.10317 OF 2023

¶37

¶38

considered by the competent authority.

¶39

The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the 6^th respondent to refer the matter to the 4^th respondent within a period of two weeks. While referring the matter, the 6^th respondent shall also intimate the 4^th respondent regarding the width of the creek and the distance from the creek to the plot boundary of the petitioner. The 4^th respondent shall take appropriate decision in the matter within a further period of four weeks.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE

ded

W.P(C) NO.10317 OF 2023

¶44

¶45

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10317/2023

¶46

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶47

EXHIBIT P1THE TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED
NO.842/2022 DATED 14-3-2022
EXHIBIT P2THE TRUE COPY OF THE AADHAR CARD OF THE
PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P3THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF
APPLICATION SUBMITTED FOR OBTAINING THE
BUILDING PERMIT, DATED 01/07/2022
EXHIBIT P4THE TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH
ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED
28/06/2022

Ashwathy K. G., v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashwathy K. G., v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saralan.B Vs Lt Gen Rajeev Chaudhary, Dgbr

Rexin P.S. Vs State of Kerala

Saju.M, Vs State of Kerala

T.K.Sukumaran, Vs 1. Varantharapilly Grama Panchayat

Rejeena Thomas, Vs Varantharapilly Grama Panchayat

S.Sudhi Kumar, Vs Thiruvananthapuram Corporation