Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 3847

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CHENNAI (SOUTHERN ZONE BENCH)
Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member, Satyagopal Korlapati, Expert Member
Jesu Rethinam – Appellant
Versus
Tamil Nadu Coastal Zone Management Authority – Respondent
Original Application No.101 of 2023 (SZ)

Advocates:
For Applicant(s): Mr. A. Yogeshwaran
For Respondent(s): Mr. P.S. Raman, Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith, Dr. D. Shanmuganathan, Mr. AR. L. Sundaresan, Mr. S. Janarthanam

Draft CZMP maps must include all CRZ Notification-mandated features like fishing zones and ecologically sensitive areas, verified by ground truthing for specific claims, with stakeholder inputs incorporated before public consultation to ensure coastal protection and livelihoods.

Headnote:(A) Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2019 - Annexure IV - Preparation of draft CZMP maps - Fishermen community challenging incompleteness of uploaded maps lacking fishing zones, village boundaries, breeding grounds, common properties, long-term housing plans, ecologically sensitive features like sand dunes, turtle nesting grounds, seagrass beds, erosion zones, and land use planning between HTL and hazard line - Maps at 1:25000 scale instead of 1:4000, no comparison with previous maps, inadequate public consultation - Tribunal holds draft CZMP must include all mandatory components per Notification, be subject to ground truthing for specifically notified ecologically sensitive areas, incorporate stakeholder inputs before final public hearing - Authorities directed to rectify omissions via ground truthing, collect district inputs, ensure compliance before republication and hearings. (Paras 3, 16-25, 35-42)

(B) Environmental Law - Public Consultation and Ground Truthing - Draft CZMP for public domain must be near-final, leaving minimal room for complaints on missing particulars - Public must raise genuine, evidence-backed issues requiring ground truthing; authorities bound to verify specific ecologically sensitive area omissions via satellite imagery and ground truthing per guidelines - Balances ecocentrism, sustainable development, livelihoods. (Paras 35-41)

Facts of the case:
Fishermen applicants challenged draft CZMP maps uploaded by coastal zone authority for multiple districts, alleging omissions of key fisherman-related features, ecologically sensitive areas, erosion zones, long-term housing plans, inadequate scale, no prior map comparisons, and flawed public consultation process despite prior judicial directives.

Findings of Court:
Draft maps incomplete; must incorporate fishing zones, breeding areas, common properties, ecologically sensitive features via ground truthing where specifically noticed, district collector inputs; prepare land use planning between HTL and hazard line; follow Notification strictly before public hearings.

Issues: Whether uploaded draft CZMP maps comply with CRZ Notification 2019 requirements; adequacy of ecologically sensitive area demarcation without ground truthing; compliance with prior judicial orders on map preparation and public consultation.

Ratio Decidendi: Draft CZMP must comprehensively cover all Notification-mandated features; ground truthing essential for verifying specifically alleged ecologically sensitive area omissions beyond satellite data; authorities to integrate stakeholder suggestions pre-hearing for informed public participation and coastal integrity.

Result: Application disposed with directions for ground truthing, incorporation of inputs, corrections, and due process before republication and public hearings. (Para 42-43)

Table of Content
1. applicants challenge incomplete czmp maps lacking essential features. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 14)
2. history of crz notifications and prior judicial challenges to incomplete czmps. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. dispute over missing fishing zones and housing plans in draft maps. (Para 16 , 17)
4. ecologically sensitive areas marked in crz-ia per respondent claims. (Para 18)
5. compliance affirmed with prior judicial orders on czmp preparation. (Para 19)
6. 1:25000 scale maps adequate for draft public consultation stage. (Para 20 , 21)
7. public consultation followed 45-day period and 30-day notice requirements. (Para 22)
8. prior and current czmp maps accessible for stakeholder comparison. (Para 23)
9. hazard line requires land use planning between htl and hazard line. (Para 24 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
10. district inputs highlight omissions needing correction before hearings. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
11. ground truthing essential for verifying ecologically sensitive areas. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
12. direct ground truthing and incorporate district suggestions in czmp. (Para 42)
13. application disposed with directions for czmp compliance. (Para 43)

JUDGEMENT

Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member

1. The fishermen community represented by the first applicant and the second applicant himself being a member of the fishermen community have challenged the draft Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) Maps uploaded by the respondent authority on the website of the Department of Environment.

2. It is alleged that the 105 Maps uploaded for the districts of Chengalpattu, Cuddalore, Kanyakumari, Mayiladuthurai, Nagapattinam, Pudukkottai, Ramanathapuram, Thanjavur, Thiruvaur, Thoothukudi, Tirunelveli and Villupuram are incomplete, as they do not even have all the necessary components marked in the maps.

3. It is alleged further that the fundamental components like fishing zone in the water bodies and fishing village boundaries, breeding and spawning grounds of fish, common properties of the fishermen community, and detailed plans for long-term housing needs of coastal fishing community are not earmarked on any of the 105 CZMP map sheets uploaded. The map also had not marked the existing authorized developments on the seaward side which would result in frustrating the identification of future violations. The ecologically sensitive features like sand dunes, turtle nesting grounds, seagrass beds, sanctuaries, and reserve forests have also not been marked.

4. It is further alleged that no written plan has been published and only a generic document stating the contents of the CRZ Notification is published. There is also no specific long- term housing plan for coastal fishermen which is an essential component considering the threat of climate change induced sea level rise. The difference between the previous map and the present map is not distinctly marked for easy understanding. Though 1:4000 scale maps have to be uploaded for scrutiny, only 1:25000 scale maps have been prepared and uploaded for comments. Finally, erosion zones have not been marked despite directions from this Tribunal in O.A. No.04 of 2013 (SZ).

5. This is not the first occasion or litigation relating to the preparation of the CZMP. There were challenges earlier before this Tribunal as well as before the Hon’ble High Court.

6. The Central Government, with a view to ensure the livelihood, and security of the fishermen communities and other local communities living in the coastal areas, to conserve and protect the coastal stretches, its unique environment and its marine area and to promote development through sustainable manner based on the scientific principle taking into account the dangerous of the natural hazards in the coastal area, sea level rise due to global warming, issued the CRZ Notification, 1991 vide S.O. 114 (E) dated 19.02.1991. These regulations are issued to strike a balance between economic growth and envi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 3847

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CHENNAI (SOUTHERN ZONE BENCH)Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member, Satyagopal Korlapati, Expert MemberJesu Rethinam – AppellantVersusTamil Nadu Coastal Zone Management Authority – RespondentOriginal Application No.101 of 2023 (SZ)

Draft CZMP maps must include all CRZ Notification-mandated features like fishing zones and ecologically sensitive areas, verified by ground truthing for specific claims, with stakeholder inputs incorporated before public consultation to ensure coastal protection and livelihoods.

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CHENNAI (SOUTHERN ZONE BENCH)
Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member, Satyagopal Korlapati, Expert Member
Jesu Rethinam – Appellant
Versus
Tamil Nadu Coastal Zone Management Authority – Respondent
Original Application No.101 of 2023 (SZ)