LexTHE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE COASTAL MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY versus DLF UNIVERSAL LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ADELIE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.) & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 1 S.C.R. THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE COASTAL MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY v. DLF UNIVERSAL LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ADELIE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.) & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 117-120 of 2018) JANUARY 10, 2018 [R. F. NARIMAN AND SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.] Environmental Laws: Environment clearance – Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification – Violation of – Regularisation of illegal construction – On facts, construction of multi-storey residential complex on the bank of Chilavannurkayal (back waters) in Kerela – Allegation that the construction project completed in violation of CRZ notification – Single Judge of the High Court held that the construction was illegal, not capable of being regularized, thus passed direction for its demolition – Division Bench of the High Court upholding the findings of the Single Judge, set aside the order of demolition and directed regularization on payment of Rs 1 crore as fine – On appeal, held: Authorities continue to do a flip-flop-flip putting the large investments at stake in a jeopardy – Specialised authorities were to carry out the task with promptitude but their lackadaisical attitude permitted DLF to raise the issue of a deemed environment clearance – Alleged violations have not emerged with clarity – Findings of the courts below on CRZ violations alleged against DLF set aside – Approach of MoEF also appears to be strange and a complete contradiction between what was stated before the courts – Thus, the findings of the impugned order is set aside whereas the fine of Rs.1 crore sustained. Environment clearance for construction project – Application for – Held: Need to have more single window clearance, so that there is less uncertainty and better enforcement. [2018] 1 S.C.R. 146 146 A B C D E F G H 147 Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 The importance of environment and ecological balance requires the enforcement of various Regulations, Rules and enactments to be strictly followed. Specialised bodies like the Kerela Coastal Zone Management Authority (KCZMA)- appellant have been created to deal with the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Regulations for greater sensitivity. It is, thus, no answer to say that it does not have an enforcement mechanism and thus, cannot act. [Para 43][164-E] Anil Hoble v. Kashinath Jairam Shetye (2016) 10 SCC 701; Union Territory of Lakshadweep v. Seashells Beach Resort [2012] 5 SCR 1108 : (2012) 6 SCC 136; Esha Ekta Apartments Cooperative Housing Society v. Municipal Corporation of Mumbai [2013] 4 SCR 478 : [2013] 5 SCC 357; Piedade Filomena Gonsalves v. State of Goa [2004] 2 SCR 1135 : (2004) 3 SCC 445 – referred to. 1.2 If the allegation of large scale violations by DLF were to be correct there would be no alternative but to bring down the structure. There has to be undoubtedly greater clarity on the processes and a better understanding between various authorities so that developers are not left in the lurch-violators have to be punished but it cannot be that the authorities continue to do a flip-flop-flip putting the large investments at stake in a jeopardy. This is what appears to have happened in the instant case. [Paras 48-49][166-B-D] 1.3 It is made clear that in the future, wherever permissions are required to come and are to be obtained before commencement of construction, it would be no answer that activity can be carried on without obtaining the permissions. Simultaneously, the permissions itself are envisaged in a time bound schedule and not through improvement of cases by authorities running into years. Thus, from the inception itself, there should be clarity on what is permissible and what is not.[Para 50][166-E] 1.4 In the said conspectus, if the present project is seen, there is really no question mark over the various permissions to SECY., KERALA STATE COASTAL MNGMT. AUTH. v. DLF UNIVERSAL LTD. A B C D E F G H 148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 1 S.C.R. carry on construction having been obtained by DLF. The land was purchased through sale deeds and the sale deeds specified the nature of the area. It would, thus, be no answer to state that even the Revenue authorities are oblivious to what is the nature of the land. DLF, thus, purchased the land legally and obtained requisite permissions including qua the FAR, which aspect stands explained by the Corporation as to why it is not 1.50 as alleged by KCZMA/appellant nor 2.5 as is alleged by DLF but in the given case was taken as 2 an
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.