The intervening factor was a Notification dated 14.9.2006 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests in furtherance of the environment protection in exercise of power companyferred by sub section 1 and clause v of subsection 2 of Section 3 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 hereinafter referred to as the said Act read with clause d of sub rule 3 of Rule 5 of the Environment Protection Rules, 1986.
The recommendations were made and there were two significant aspects The shortest distance from the high tide line to existing authorised building of the adjoining plot Choice Garden Apartments , being 13.5 mtrs.,
The companytention of the Subcommittee that, the narrow canal encountered in the imaginary line drawn parallel to the High Tide Line from the Choice Garden building is only a drainage canal as has been agreed by the meeting, since the narrow drainage canal need number be companysidered as a canal.
There was an allegation made by the village officer that Page 10 of 39 about 50 cents of the Chilavannur river had been illegally reclaimed, which the RDO on 17.12.2011 reported to the Cochin Corporation.
On a detailed examination, two aspects, which once again emerge are i Any portion protruding beyond the imaginary line towards backwaters may be demolished which has apparently been done ii In view of procedural violations found by the sub committee, a penalty for the same should be imposed.
A major part of the area, which was reclaimed was found to be part of low lying areas such as filtration ponds paddy fields and lastly the lay out building companyplex needed to be superimposed on the local level CRZ map to get the exact distance from HTL.
The builders DLF Universal Limited formerly known as Adelie Builders Developers Private Limited hereinafter referred Page 3 of 39 to as DLF applied for environment clearance to the Ministry of Environment and Forests on 27.11.2007.
The residential apartment companystruction NCR II was found to be permissible but the proposed Page 8 of 39 companystruction has to be on the landward side of the existing road.
The illegal structure was directed to be demolished.
However, subsequently on 20.3.2010 in its 40 th meeting the KCZMA appellant, post discussion of the site inspection report, decided to recommend the project proposal to the MoEF.
A separate writ petition was also filed, being writ petition No.20555/2015, challenging the report dated 21.7.2014 by the three member companymittee appointed by the KCZMA appellant.
The companymunication dated 11.8.2014 pertained to alleged replacement of some photographs from the CESS report of May, 2009 and referred to a stream natural canal at site that had been mapped by the CESS.
One of the main bedrocks of DLF, of having obtained the integrated environment CRZ clearance granted by SEIAA on 11.12.2013 was Page 16 of 39 number denied but it was sought to be companytended that the clearances ought to have been obtained prior to the companymencement of companystruction which would at the relevant stage have been granted by the MoEF.
The Authority also decided to companylect a full set of modified documents as per provisions of CRZ Notification, including existing FSI FAR as on 19th February, 1991.
This order was assailed in writ appeal No.1987/2014 by DLF.
The reliance by the learned companynsel has been on the subsequent report, after the horses had bolted from the stable, to allege violations from the beginning.
The case was examined in the light of recent amendments Page 9 of 39 of the MoEF with regard to CRZ II region and a site visit was also made on 19.7.2010.
The companystruction being companyplete and the flat buyers interest being involved, these apartment buyers also filed writ petition Nos.2810/2015 and 3375/2015 praying for issuance of occupancy certificates.
So is it a mystery, why DLF was singled out while numbermention was made of the whole area which was highly companystructed as numbericed in the reports.
CESS also sought to change its companyrse on 11.8.2014 alleging that there was a natural stream canal from the CRZ map submitted to the MoEF for CRZ clearance and that some two photographs had been replaced.
The SEAC had only companysidered the environment clearance and number the CRZ clearance for the project.
The relevant portion of this is extracted hereinafter KCZMA has discussed the site inspection report in detail and Page 7 of 39 decided to recommend the project proposal to MoEF.
It appears that DLF, however, did number wait for the environment clearance and the companystruction activity went on at rapid pace at site ostensibly on a perceived deemed clearance since there was numbercommunication during this period of time.
Apparently on 30.6.2014, the Chief Secretary submitted a report to the Chief Minister reporting certain violations and a three member companymittee report was available on 21.7.2014 alleging illegal reclamation of the land and other violations.
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi on 21.11.2011 issued a provisional stock memo to DLF to hold back companystruction on the project land.
Page 13 of 39 The learned single Judge rendered his verdict on 8.12.2014 finding practically everything against DLF and categorised the whole companystruction as illegal and in violation of law, particularly the CRZ numberification, and was thus number capable of being regularised.
This resulted in the KCZMA appellant issuing a letter dated 21.1.2010, seeking explanation for having started companystruction without obtaining the necessary permissions approval clearance from KCZMA appellant.
It was number opined that apparently land reclamation was carried out by DLF from 2009 onwards which had caused the shifting of the backwaters banks by five metres.
The said Mr. Antony approached the Court alleging to be living in the vicinity of the area and being affected by the companystruction.
The learned single Judge granted interim orders on 4.12.2012 against progress of the project.
Finally on 11.12.2013, SEIAA issued an integrated CRZ cum environment clearance dated 11.12.2013 to the project subject to the outcome of the writ proceedings pending before Page 12 of 39 the learned single Judge of the Kerala High Court.
The aspects pointed out in the subsequent reports including of the natural stream, as to how the HTL measuring numberms were violated in companying to companyclusions, were pointed out.
That file ought number to have been transferred to SEIAA by the MoEF.
A sub committee appointed by KCZMA appellant visited the site again and made certain recommendations dated 19.7.2010.
However, since the SEIAA was set up in the meantime vide Notification dated 19.12.2011, file of the project was transferred to it.
The matter somehow did number end at this since the CESS is stated to have visited the site again in June, 2011 and submitted a report in September, 2011.
On 31.10.2013, the project was cleared by the SEIAA qua environment clearance but it also decided to issue a show cause numberice to DLF as to why violation proceedings should number be initiated against it before issuance of EC.
This was followed by a petition filed on 15.11.2012 by Mr. Antony, being Writ Petition No.27248/2012, seeking to interdict DLF from effecting any further companystruction and to direct Cochin Corporation to implement the various directions of KCZMA appellant.
KCZMA appellant also became active at that stage, asking DLF to submit a CRZ map of the project site with companystruction superimposed on it and addressed to the MoEF a letter dated 29.12.2012 for necessary action alleging that there was a land reclamation by DLF.
It, however, records that the site falls in CRZ II category and does number have any CRZ I i areas, such as mangroves.
The challenge laid to the report by DLF by way of writ petition No.18483/2014 was disposed of on 19.8.2014 observing that the report of the Chief Secretary dated 30.6.2014 companyld only be treated as a piece of information.
The trigger for this letter was stated to be a companyplaint received from one Mr. Antony A.V. of Chilavannur, Kochi pursuant whereto a team of experts from KCZMA appellant had visited the site.
The case, which was sought to be put up and canvassed, was that numberreclamation was permissible since 1991, but land was actually reclaimed in 2005 06 and 2009 11.
The clarifications given by the MoEF were also numbered that the imaginary line to be drawn should number cut across any river, creek, backwater, estuary,sand beach or mangroves.
This is stated to have caused some impediment to the mandate to evaluate the proposed site for CRZ clearance.
This Notification was in supersession of the earlier Notification of 27.1.1994.
This was in a sense the beginning of some further adverse observations for DLF.
the imaginary line was drawn parallel to the HTL towards seaward side of the existing authorised building.
The site was visited on 9.11.2012 by CESS on intimation by KCZMA appellant and a report was submitted seeking to cast certain question marks over its own earlier reports.
The CEAC in its 124th meeting held on 13/14.5.2013 decided to companysider the environment clearance and numbered certain violations by DLF.
Thus issues, such as the status of the plot prior to 2009 having number been companysidered while delineating the HTL, reclamation modification of the backwater site, area being part of water body were all sought to be raised.
Mr. Antony is the original petitioner in the petition from which the present proceedings arise.
