Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Land area between HTL and Low Tide Line (LTL) which will be termed as the intertidal zone.
5. The water and bed area between the LTL to the territorial water limit (12 Nm) in case of sea and the water and the bed area between LTL at the bank to the LTL on the opposite side of the bank of tidal influenced water bodies."

2. As per the said Notification, areas under CRZ were assigned four categories being CRZ-I, CRZ-II, CRZ-III and CRZ-IV. 

       (ii)      [....]
       (iii) In CRZ II areas
1. The development or redevelopment shall continue to be undertaken in accordance with the norms laid down in the Town and Country Planning Regulations as the existed on the date of issue of the notification dated the 19th February 1991, unless specified otherwise in this notification.
2. Slum Rehabilitation Schemes

12. Needless to state the rigors imposed by paragraph V of CRZ-2011 concerning FSI and redevelopment to be undertaken directly by the State or their Joint Venture was not incorporated in CRZ-2019. Meaning thereby, development or jdk 12 os.wp.1534.19.j.doc redevelopment in areas comprised in areas falling in CRZ-II could be as per the building norms. The FSI would be as per the building norms.

13. The 1st petitioner of which the 2nd petitioner is a Director intended redevelopment of slum known as Mariamma Nagar situated near Nehru Centre, Worli, wherein CS No. 47(Part) and 16/47. The redevelopment scheme has been languishing for the past twenty years due to restriction on FSI. The undisputed position is that the plot in question was in an area comprising CRZ-II under CRZ-2011 Notification. The present petition was filed on the plea that CRZ-2019 eases the distance requirement to categorize lands as CRZ-I, CRZ-II, CRZ-III and CRZ-IV. Meaning thereby, such lands which would not be comprised in CRZ-II under CRZ-2011 could fall under CRZ-II under CRZ-2019 Notification but not vice versa. Meaning thereby, a land comprised in CRZ-II area under CRZ- 2011 would not go outside the area comprised in CRZ-II under CRZ-2019 Notification. Thus a land which was in CRZ-II under CRZ-2011 Notification would continue to be under CRZ-II even under CRZ-2019. Thus, as per the petitioners it hardly mattered whether the coastal zone management plan was finalized qua the petitioners' land. Therefore the petitioners pray that it be relieved of the rigor under clause (i) of paragraph jdk 13 os.wp.1534.19.j.doc 6 of CRZ-2019 which required that unless coastal zone management plans were finalized under CRZ-2019 provisions under CRZ-2011 shall continue to apply.

18. The learned Additional Solicitor General urged that CRZ-2019 has been challenged by way of a PIL No. 18 of 2019 and PIL No. 19 of 2019 before the Goa Bench of this Court. Counsel urged that it may be possible that the challenge may succeed and CRZ-2019 may be declared ultra vires ' The Environment Protection Act, 1986'. The argument overlooks the fact that challenge in the Public Interest Litigations is to such parts of the Notification which reduce the distance from the high tide line and in particular relating to creeks. We have perused the said two petitions and a perusal thereof would show that the case pleaded is that on the basis of scientific studies parameters were finalized to determine areas comprising CRZ-I, CRZ-II, CRZ-III and CRZ-IV when CRZ- 2011 was issued. History of Coastal Regulation Zone Notifications have been traced out to bring home point that scientific studies do not warrant any reduction in the distance from the high tide line, for the same would be a disaster to the ecology and the environment. The petitions also highlight the possibility of subjectiveness influening demarcation of the high jdk 16 os.wp.1534.19.j.doc tide line which hithertofore had to be notified by an Agency notified by National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management, but under the impugned Notification the same body would mark the high tide line. It is pleaded in the petition that by opening more areas for development people would be encouraged to move closer to the sea and reduction of NDZ in coastal area from 200 meters from high tide line to 50 meters had been struck down by the Supreme Court in the year 1996. That activities permitted under CRZ-IB would be permitted in CRZ-II and CRZ-IIIB areas.