Kerala High Court: ED Can Investigate Without FIR in Scheduled Offence Cases (CMRL Matter)  ||  Delhi High Court Upholds TRAI Rule Capping TV Advertisements at 12 Minutes Per Hour  ||  Supreme Court Directs High Courts to Deliver Judgments in 3 Months and Bail Orders in One Day  ||  Supreme Court: Successful Resolution Applicant Cannot Negotiate Further After CoC Approval  ||  Supreme Court: Succession Law Applies, Not Primogeniture, to Ex-Royal’s Private Estate Inheritance  ||  Supreme Court: Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Challenge Arbitrator’s Section 16 Decision  ||  Supreme Court: Sanyasi Status Cannot Be Ground to Reject Land Compensation Claim  ||  Supreme Court: Section 33(1)(a) of Arbitration Act Cannot Alter Nature of Interest in Award  ||  Supreme Court: Society Office Bearers Not Liable for Cheque Dishonour Without Active Business Role  ||  Supreme Court: Asking a Woman to Adjust in Marriage Does Not Amount to Cruelty By In-Laws    

Anil v. Kashinath Jairam Shetye and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (07 Oct 2016)

Construction prohibited upto 200 metres from High Tide Line, such structures required to be demolished

MANU/SC/1284/2016

Environment

In present case, Tribunal held that structure as existed prior to 19th February, 1991, on plot of land, falling within 100 metres distance (in CRZ III area), was a small structure at corner of the said plot and was used as a garage. Tribunal then relied on decision of the High Court of Bombay in case of Goa Foundation v. The Panchayat of Condolim & The Panchayat of Calangute, in which directions were issued to the State Authorities to take action against such unauthorized structures and constructions put up on land falling within CRZ-III area in Goa, village or town-wise after 19th February, 1991; and further that permission can be granted "only" for repair and renovation of existing "dwelling units" in such areas. Tribunal following that decision observed that, structure other than the original structure as existed on 19th February, 1991, be demolished forthwith after following due process. Review petition before Tribunal was also dismissed. Aggrieved, Appellant has filed present appeal challenging both judgments on original application and review application.

When Appellant purchased subject plot vide registered Sale Deed dated 3rd August, 1992, only a small structure at corner of said plot was in existence and was used as a garage and which was indisputably within 100 metres from the High Tide Line. On this finding, it necessarily follows, that structure as it exists now is quite different-both in shape, size and location being in the middle of the plot. Obviously, it is an unauthorized structure constructed after 19th February, 1991. CRZ policy dated 19th February, 1991 prohibits any construction upto 200 metres from High Tide Line. It is to be treated as 'No Development Zone', except for repairs of existing "authorized structures" not exceeding specific permissible FSI, plinth area and other norms for permissible activities including facilities essential for such activity under the Notification.

Sub-clause (i) plainly mandates that "no construction" of any kind be permitted within 200 metres from the High Tide Line. That area has to be treated as "No Development Zone", except for repairs of "existing authorized structures" (on date of the Notification i.e. 19thFebruary, 1991) and not exceeding the permissible FSI, plinth area and density and for permissible activities.

View taken by Tribunal relying on decision of Bombay High Court, which Tribunal was bound to follow, permitted retention of only dwelling units within CRZ III area and constructed prior to 19th February, 1991. The directions were given by High Court in case of Goa Foundation. So long as these directions are in force, State Authorities or Municipal Authorities were bound by same and they could not have granted permission to any applicant in breach thereof. Permission granted to Appellant by GCZMA would be of no avail, as it is not consistent with directions of High Court.

Structure directed to be demolished by Tribunal, was erected after 19th February, 1991. That being an unauthorized structure within meaning of Sub-clause (i), could not be used for any purpose whatsoever and was required to be demolished. Therefore, Supreme Court affirmed finding recorded by Tribunal and consequential directions given in that behalf as unassailable.

Relevant : Goa Foundation v. The Panchayat of Condolim & The Panchayat of Calangute W.P. No. 422/1998 & W.P. No. 99/1999

Tags : DIRECTION   STRUCTURE   DEMOLITION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved