Ramesh J. Tharkan and Arundhati Nayar W/o. Raj Nayar Vs. State of Kerala and Ors. Pays/Territoire Inde Type de cour Nationale - cour supérieure Date Jan 9, 2007 Source UNEP, InforMEA Nom du tribunal High Court of Kerala Siège de la cour Ernakulam Juge Bali, V.K.Ramachandran, M. Langue Anglais Sujet Mer, Terre et sols, Environnement gén. Mot clé Planification territoriale Gestion des zones côtières Résumé This writ petition is filed in public interest, as according to petitioners, indiscriminate and illegal reclamation and encroachment of Kayal lands in the Maradu Panchayat is likely to cause ecological imbalance. After the notifications had been issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests on 19-02-1991, coastal areas cannot be reclaimed except for permitted activities, and it is submitted that the named authorities have a duty for enforcement of the Regulations. Accordingly, it is prayed that necessary directions to prohibit the illegal reclamation of land and backwaters in the Cochin city and suburbs are to be directed to be issued. The counter affidavit filed by the third respondent--Panchayat shows that the reclamation was not carried out on the instructions of the Panchayat, but the reclamation work was undertaken as included in the budget work of the State Government. It was for the purpose of formulating a bus terminal. Though 5 buses were plying on the route, for want of parking facilities buses were not reaching the terminal. It was on the basis of the representations submitted by the local public and the Panchayat Member, that the Government had sanctioned the widening of the PWD road, including construction of the terminal. The petitioners pointed out that the affidavit filed by the 5th respondent dated 12-08-2003 would indicate that only 3 cents of Kayal alone had been reclaimed, but the subsequent reports showed that larger areas had been reclaimed. It had also been submitted that 'an area of more than 1 to 2 acres or more' have been reclaimed by private parties adjoining the reclamation site. In the present case, it is evident that reclamation work had been authorized by the Chief Engineer on 26-11-2001 forgetting and overlooking the fact that the activities permissible under the notification were for the control of coastal erosion and the like and that as far as the Kerala State was concerned, no reclamation of kayal would be permissible within CRZ areas. Though, the Court is of the view that even if there is no alternative to the construction which is unauthorized and illegal to be dismantled, however the works had been completed. The land is used as bus parking lot for general public purpose, which caters to primary needs and given the circumstances, although reclamation was in contravention of the regulations, demolition will not be in public interest. But surely that is not the case with regard to the additional reclamations made. Clause (4) of the Regulations provides that the State Government and such authorities, as may be designated for the purpose shall be responsible for monitoring the enforcement of the provisions of the notification in their respective jurisdiction. The Court considers to be essential that all reclamations after the notification of 1991 require a proper accounting and scrutiny, especially if done at the instance of private individuals. No person will be entitled to enjoy or retain ill-gotten fruits obtained by violating the law of the land. The authorities also are to monitor activities of unauthorized constructions, encroachment or reclamation as required under the statute and come to prevent it by employing appropriate service as the situation might demand. Texte intégral COU-156242.pdf Site web www.indiankanoon.org