Kerala
,
Maradu
,
Ernakulam
Published :
Sep 2019
|
Updated :
Supreme Court Orders Demolition of Apartment in Ernakulam for Violating CRZ Rules
Reported by
Nazimuddin Siddique
Legal Review by
Anmol Gupta
Edited by
Anupa Kujur
450
Households affected
1714
People affected
2006
Year started
6.8
ha.
Land area affected
450
Households affected
1714
People Affected
2006
Year started
6.8
Land area affected
Key Insights
Sector
Infrastructure
Reason/Cause of conflict
Township/Real Estate
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Urban
Unclassifed
Sector
Infrastructure
Reason/Cause of conflict
Township/Real Estate
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Urban
Ended
1
Summary

Following a Supreme Court order on September 6, 2019, to demolish the Maradu apartment complex in Kochi in Ernakulam district for violating coastal norms, a technical committee handed over the demolition task to two firms--Edifice Engineering and Vijay Steels. Demolition work started on October 14, and the state government plans to complete it by January 20, 2020.

According to CRZ Notification 1991 and the associated Coastal Zone Management Plan drawn in 1996, the Maradu area was categorised as CRZ-IIIB where 200 meters from the High Tide Line is considered a No Development Zone. While the builders obtained permission to construct the buildings from the Maradu Panchayat in 2006, no permission was obtained from the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority. The Panchayat had failed to forward the the application to the KCZMA. In response to a directive issued by the KCZMA, the Maradu Panchayat issued a notice to the builders to stop construction as it violated CRZ Notification 1991.

In 2007, the builders management to get an interim stay order from the Kkerala High Court and completed construction of the building. This notice was challenged by one of the builders in the Kerala High Court. Subsequently, Maradu was upgraded from a panchayat into a municipality in 2010 and therefore, the area was recategorised as CRZII under CRZ Notification 2011 and its associated CZMP. CRZII faces fewer restrictions and the construction would not have been illegal. However, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change had not approved the draft 2011 CZMP, and therefore, it was the 1996 CZMP that had applied to the area.

In 2012, a single-judge bench quashed the notice to the builders - a decision which a division bench of the HC upheld in 2015.

In 2016, the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority approached the Supreme Court in 2016 The apex court issued the demolition order after a three-member committee, which was appointed by it earlier, noted that the area was already notified as a Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) and construction was prohibited when the apartment was being built. The court ruled that the entire apartment complex was built illegally, violating the CRZ norms.

The Maradu complex has 400 flats in five buildings, with at least 357 families as occupants. The residents have been left in a lurch as the Supreme Court had rejected a plea filed by them against the demolition order.
The flat owners had earlier refused to vacate as the demolition would render them homeless. They staged sit-in protests and hunger strikes. Various political parties, including the Congress, the Muslim League and the Communist Party of India Marxist, have come out in support of the residents, taking a united stand against the decision of the apex court. But now as the demolition has begun, the families have vacated.

The Supreme Court directed the state to pay each family an interim compensation of INR 25 lakhs. It has also directed the freezing of assets of the builders, namely Alfa Serene, Holy Faith Builders and Developers Private Limited and Jain Coral Cove, who have washed their hands off the matter. In a letter to the Maradu municipal authorities, the builders wrote that they had paid all their taxes and were no longer responsible for any situation unfolding at the complex.

The Supreme Court judgement noted that the apartment complex was built on the shores of backwaters that "support exceptionally large biological diversity and constitute one of the largest wetlands in India.” As per CRZ 2011, the Vembanad wetland is a Critically Vulnerable Coastal Area and a Ramsar site under the Ramsar Convention and Wetland Rules 2010 & 2017. The Court also noted that the city is unable to withstand flooding and heavy rains due to such illegal constructions, as the landscape offers protection against such calamities.

In August 2020, the last of four buildings from Maradu town was razedto ground deploying explosives. However, nearby residents have complained about the destruction caused to their houses due to demolition and are awaiting promised repair work.

2
Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Refusal to give up land for the project

Demand for compensation

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Dispossession of land

Region Classification

Urban

Type of Land

Common and Private

Coastal

What was the action taken by the police?

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Details of sources (names of accused, names and numbers of any lawyers, names of any police officers contacted)

Status of Project

Project scrapped

Original Project Deadline

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Dwelling/habitation use, Conservation / protection of ecosystems and species, Ecosystem/Environmental Services

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

Total investment involved (in Crores):

₹

Type of investment:

Year of Estimation

Page Number In Investment Document:

Has the Conflict Ended?

Yes

When did it end?

August 2020

Why did the conflict end?

After the Supreme Court ruled against them over illegal building on land coming under Coastal Regulation Zone, the families vacated the place and by August 2020 all four buildings were razed to the ground.

4
Additional Information

Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:

Supreme Court of India, Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority; Maradu Municipality

PSUs Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?

Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached

Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:

Edifice Engineering, Vijay Steels; Holy Faith Builders and Developers PVT. LTD.; Jain Housing and Construction LTD; Alfa Ventures PVT LTD; K.P Varkey & VS Builders

Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?

Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:

Residents

5
Information on the use of criminal law

What was the action taken by the police?

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Legal Supporting Documents

JOIN
THE LCW COMMUNITY
Exclusive monthly policy briefs, stories from the ground, Quarterly Analytics report, Curated Expert talks, merchandise and much more.


Support our work.
Sign Up Today
Conflicts Map
Conflict Database
About Us