LexGOAN REAL ESTATE & CONSTRUCTION LTD. & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 3 S.C.R. 1160 A GOAN REAL ESTATE & CONSTRUCTION LTD. & ANR. B V. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT & ORS. (Writ Petition (C) No. 329 of 2008) MARCH 31, 2010 (K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI. AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.] Environmental law - Construction on coastal area - C Coastal Regulation Zone Notification declaring area upto 100 meters from High Tide Line as 'No Development Zone' - Amendment to the Notification in 1994, relaxing 'No Development Zone' to 50 meters from 100 meters - In 1996, Supreme Court declaring parl of the amending Notification D as illegal - Effect on constructions made and on-going constructions by real estate owners pursuant to the plans sanctioned on the basis of amended CRZ Notification - Held: Judgment of 1996 declaring parl of the amended Notification to be illegal, will not affect the completed or the on-going E constructions being undertaken pursuant to the said Notification - Operation of 1994 amendment neither stayed by this Courl nor by Government - Thus, citizen entitled to act as per the said notification - Amendment was quashed because it would permit new constructions to take place which F was contrary to the provisions of Environment Act, 1986, thus, judgment is to be given prospective effect - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32. Judgment/Order - Construction of - Held: Judgment is to be read in its entirety - It cannot be read as a statute - It is G to be construed having regard to the text and context in which the same was passed. Judgment - Retrospective or prospective - Determination of - Held: Courl is to decide on a balance of H 1160 GOAN REAL ESTATE & CONSTR. LTD v. UNION OF1161 INDIA THR. SEC. MIN. OF ENV. all relevant considerations - It would look into the justifiable A reliance on the previous position by administration; ability to effectuate the new rule adopted in the overruling case without doing injustice, whether its operation is likely to burden the administration of justice substantially or would retard the purpose. B The Central Government issued the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification dated February 19, 1991 and the area upto 100 meters from the High Tide Line was earmarked as 'No Development Zone' and no construction was permitted within this zone. The said C Notification was amended by the Notification dated August 16, 1994 and the 'No Development Zone' was relaxed to 50 meters from 100 meters. In the year 1993, the petitioner no.1-owner of land D situated near river Zuari at Goa, obtained permission to construct a hotel and residential complex beyond 100 meters. In view of the Notification dated August 16, 1994, the petitioners sought permission and commenced construction in accordance with newly approved plans. E In 1996, this Court in *Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action's case declared the two amendments out of the six amendments introduced by the amending Notification, as illegal. Thereafter, the respondent no. 4 filed a complaint before the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority F regarding constructions made by the petitioners between 50 meters and 100 meters. The Additional Collector, Goa issued a stop work order. Subsequently, the Additional Director of the MOEF, issued a clarification that any developmental activity which had been initiated between G August 16, 1994 and April 18, 1996 after obtaining all the requisite clearances should be construed as an on-going project. Even thereafter, stop work order was not lifted. The National Coastal Zone Management Authority concluded that the stand taken by the MOEF was correct H 1162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R. A and was in accordance with the CRZ notification of 1991, thus, all the properties and assets constructed or under construction in the period between August 16, 1994 and April 18, 1996 during which the set back line was changed from 100 meters to 50 meters was valid. The B Public Interest Litigation was filed and the same was disposed of. The petitioners were directed to maintain status quo. Hence the present writ petition. The question which arose for consideration in the instant writ petition is whether the constructions made C and on-going constructions pursuant to the plans sanctioned on basis of the amended Coastal Regulation Zone Notification dated August 16, 1994 would be affected or not. D Partly allowing the writ petition, the Court HELD: 1.1. It is declared
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.