No way, raze illegal beach bungalows in Muttukadu: High Court

A division bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Krishnan Ramasamy dismissed a clarification plea filed by the owners of the building related to Muttukadu Panchayat granting them planning permission for building the structures in the property in question. The petition also contended that the public interest litigation, which led to the demolition order, did not make the property owners as parties consciously and deliberately.

“We are unable to trace any apt reason as to why the buildings/constructions of the petitioners cannot be demolished, as they are constructed on unapproved plots with illegal planning permission, that too in No Development Zone of CRZ III Notification,” the bench said.

Also setting aside the petitioners’ argument that they have Planning Permission for the constructions, the bench said, “No doubt, the Planning Permission of Muttukadu Panchayat was placed before this court and arguments were made by referring to the document. However, this court found that the said Planning Permission issued by Muttukadu Panchayat was illegal, as it was issued for an unapproved layout and in No Development Zone of CRZ III Notification, where no construction activity was permitted without the accord of Coastal Regulatory Authorities.”

Regarding the demolition order being passed in a PIL without them being heard, the bench pointed out the PIL and the four writ petitions were heard together many times and were adjourned from time to time for making submissions. The property owners were also permitted to file reply on the submissions made in the PIL as well.

“Therefore, the argument that orders have been passed in the PIL without impleading them as parties does not merit acceptance,” the bench said, holding that the authorities were entitled to take appropriate action to demolish the illegal constructions in such circumstances.

The petitioners had contended that the distance from the sea had reduced to 150 metres because of sea erosion. According to them, the properties were being used to run an Ayurvedic centre and also to accommodate special children whose schools are nearby. The intention was not to use the properties for residential purpose, the petitioners’ counsel said.