Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

It is further submitted by Shri Joshi, learned Counsel appearing on  behalf   of   respondent   No.8     that   the   petitioner's   allegation   that   the  subject land falls within CRZ, and is covered by the CRZ Notification,  2011, that is falling in CRZ­I or at least CRZ­III and that it is part of  inter­tidal   zone,   that   it   is   ecologically   sensitive   containing  geomorphological features which play a role in maintaining integrity of  the coast and creeks, are patently untenable. 

[11.5] It   is   further   submitted   by   Shri   Joshi,   learned   Counsel  appearing on behalf of respondent No.8 that CRZ Notification, 2011 is  applicable  only  to   areas   which   are   mentioned   in  the  5th  unnumbered  paragraph thereof. The  classification  of  areas  into CRZ­I to CRZ­IV is  only with respect to areas which are firstly declared as CRZ areas as per  the 5th unnumbered paragraph of the CRZ Notification, 2011. Therefore,  it is only if a land falls under any of the categories mentioned in the 5th  unnumbered paragraph of the CRZ Notification, 2011 that it can be said  to be governed by the CRZ Notification, 2011 and would thereunder be  categorized as CRZ­I, II, III or IV. 

[11.14] It   is   further   submitted   by   Shri   Joshi,   learned   Counsel  appearing  on behalf  of respondent No.8 that  therefore  in  the  present  case, since the subject land, except to the extent of 1.93 ha, is not falling  with any of the categories of the 5th unnumbered paragraph of the CRZ  Notification, 2011, it cannot fall within any of the categories of CRZ­I to  CRZ­IV of the CRZ Notification, 2011. Only 1.93 ha out of the subject  land is covered by the CRZ Notification, 2011 and is therefore the only  area which can fall within CRZ­I or CRZ­III and be subject to restrictions  contained   therein.   The   said   area   of   1.93   ha   has   been   subjected   to  restrictions under the CRZ clearance and no construction is permitted  thereon. 

[11.15]  It   is   further   submitted   by   Shri   Joshi,   learned   Counsel  appearing on behalf of respondent No.8 that land cannot be termed as  "ecologically   sensitive"   or   as   containing   "geomorphological   features  which   play   a   role   in   maintaining   integrity   of   the   coast   and   creeks",  which are merely terms borrowed from the CRZ­I categorization in the  CRZ   Notification,   2011   and   are   not   descriptive   of   the   subject   land,  especially when the subject land, except to the extent of 1.93 ha, is not  CRZ land at all.