New Delhi: Giving no relief to the flat owners at Maradu in Kerala's Ernakulam district, the Supreme Court has rejected the writ plea filed by them against the demolition of their apartments. The previous judgment ordering the demolition had made everything clear, said the apex court.
The court also rejected the plea to conduct an enquiry against the authorities who had given the clearance for the constructions.
The Supreme Court on July 11, 2019 rejected all four review petitions filed by the flat builders.
It was on May 8 this year that the Supreme Court ordered the demolition of around 350 apartments built violating coastal zone regulations in Maradu municipality within one month. The flats were located in Alfa Ventures twin complex at Nettoor, Holy Faith H2O at Kundannoor, Holiday Heritage, Jain Coral Cove at Kettezhath Kadavu, Nettoor and Golden Kayaloram.
These flats were built in an area where stringent CRZ-3 (Coastal regulation zone) laws were in place. The erstwhile Maradu panchayat (which later became a municipality) had granted permission for the construction in 2006-07 without informing the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority.
The Supreme Court took action based on the rule that no constructions should be carried out within 200 m from the coast in areas where CRZ-3 regulations are in place.
The government had restricted construction within 200 metres from the coasts in areas that come under the CRZ-3 category. Any form of construction in this belt needs the clearance of Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority.
Kerala High Court's single bench had quashed a notice by the municipality that sought to cancel the permission for construction.
The High Court had ruled that the municipality was solely responsible for the illegal construction and those who got the permission cannot be deemed as guilty.
However, the municipality contended in the SC that the panchayat secretary and the builders had colluded to carry out the construction. The panchayat secretary had since been removed from the service, the municipality pleaded in the court.
The SC also considered a report submitted by a court-appointed panel, including the district collector and municipal secretary, before quashing the High Court order. The court agreed to the argument that when the approval for the construction was given the area was in CRZ-3.
