2016 Supreme(Mad) 3837
MADRAS HIGH COURT (DB)
Sanjay Kishan Kaul and R. Mahadevan, JJ.
Shanthi Krishnan, Vice President, Kalakshetra Colony Welfare Association - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi and Others - Respondents
W.P. No. 23372 of 2005
Decided On : 08-12-2016
For the Petitioner:A. Yogeshwaran, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Su. Srinivasan, Assistant Solicitor General of India, T.N. Rajagopalan, Spl. GP, N. Sampath, Anandamurthy, Sathish Parasaran, Sr. Counsel for R. Parthasarathy, Advocates.
Headnote:
Constitution of India - Article 226 - Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act - Section 79 - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Sections 5, 10 and 19 - Chennai Metropolitan Area Ground Water (Regulation) Act, 1987 - Impugned property - Sale deed - Demolish all construction - quash of order - Petitioner is a resident of Colony and Vice-President Colony Welfare Association. It is stated by the petitioner that she moved to this locality two decades back on account of the quiet residential nature and abundance of ground water - Colony is located near the beach. But over the years, colony has fallen pray to unscrupulous developers and many of the areas in the colony are converted into non-residential use - There has been intensive development inside Colony, especially close to the beach, which has led to greater pressure on resources and infrastructure - Mainly due to this intensive activity, the nesting grounds of the Olive Ridley turtles which nest along coast from Beach to the southern out-skirts of the city – Held, drawing of a notional line, have been duly sanctioned - Further the adjacent buildings were granted approval only after the CRZ Notification, which were never challenged - Dispute raised by petitioner that the area is not developed and other unauthorised structures are present, is unsustainable - Question of unplanned development of the area also cannot be countenanced - Other grounds raised by the petitioner are consequential and the same also will not stand, in view of the rejection of the main grounds, as discussed above. Further, in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot go into the disputed questions of fact - Writ petition is dismissed
R. Mahadevan, J.
This writ petition has been filed to quash the order passed by the fifth respondent dated 02.03.2005 in G.O.(3D) No. 2 in Appeal No. 43194/UD-1/2004 and issue a consequential direction directing the respondents to demolish all construction at Plot Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 7 and forbear from putting up any construction on the seaward side of Coastal Road, Kalakshetra Colony, Chennai-600 90.
2. The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as under:
(i) The petitioner-Shanthi Krishnan is a resident of Kalakshetra Colony and the Vice-President of Kalakshetra Colony Welfare Association. It is stated by the petitioner that she moved to this locality two decades back on account of the quiet residential nature and abundance of ground water. This colony is located near the beach. But over the years, the colony has fallen pray to unscrupulous developers and many of the areas in the colony are converted into non-residential use. There has been intensive development inside Kalakshetra Colony, especially close to the beach, which has led to greater pressure on resources and infrastructure. Mainly due to this intensive activity, the nesting grounds of the Olive Ridley turtles which nest along the Chennai coast from the Elliots Beach to the southern out-skirts of the city, are threatened. Apart from the above precarious position, there is an increasing decline in the ground water availability and also increasing salinity in the ground water. This had occurred only due to unplanned development. The petitioner Association also invited officers of the Chennai Corporation and CMDA to meet the residents of the locality to discuss their concerns, but the same went in vain. Thereafter, the petitioner issued a Lawyer's notice dated 02.07.2004 to CMDA pointing out as to how the large scale building violations being carried out in the colony affecting the ground water table and how the large scale conversion of houses to commercial activity was affecting the colony. It is also stated that a large scale construction was put up on Cauvery Salai, very close to the junction of Coastal Road, which attracted lot of criticism from various quarters. It is further stated that these plots are situated at a distance of about 100 meters from high tide line, on the seaward side of coastal road where there is no existing road as of 1991 nor any existing approved structure as of 1991, between these plots and the high tide line. The petitioner states that she came to know that several empty plots on the coastal road, which were vacant in the year 1991, have been allotted to and purchased by families of senior bureaucrats and that even though those bureaucrats were aware about the legal prohibition against putting up construction under the Coastal Regulation Zone ("CRZ" in short) Notification which prevailed on the date of allotment and execution of sale deed, they entered into those transactions, with a hope that they could bend the law to suit their exigencies. It is further stated that major portion of land on the seaward side of coastal road is vacant and it is under threat due to inaction by the first and second respondents.
(ii) It is contended by the petitioner that some residents of the locality made representations to the official respondents/Government authorities, but there was no reply. The residents therefore caused a notice on 21.07.2004 calling upon them to furnish copies of any permissions/licenses which might have been issued and to take steps to cancel the same, as no construction is possible in the plot in question. It evoked no response. On the other hand, the construction activity had commenced in Plot Nos. 1 and 2 in Coastal Road, Kalakshetra Colony. Therefore, the petitioner along with the residents of the coastal road, filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 23812 of 2004 before this Court in which notice was ordered. While so, construction activity commenced in Plot Nos. 6 and 7 also. The continuing construction in Plot Nos.