News Updates

Govt To Challenge Kerala HC Verdict To ‘Regularise’ Illegal DLF Building

Ashok KM
30 Jan 2017 4:52 AM GMT
Govt To Challenge Kerala HC Verdict To ‘Regularise’ Illegal DLF Building
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The government has asked Ernakulam District Collector not to accept penalty of Rs. 1 crore from the real estate firm

The Kerala government is all set to challenge the Kerala High Court verdict that allowed DLF to deposit Rs.1 crore to regularise an illegal construction done in violation of CRZ norms.

As a prelude to it, the government has reportedly asked Ernakulam District Collector K Mohammed Y Safirulla not to accept Rs. 1 crore from the real estate firm. The government may either file a review petition or may prefer appeal to the Supreme Court.

The single bench had held that there was clear violation of the relevant provisions of law and that the unauthorised construction effected by the builder, besides the bank of the Chilavanoor backwaters in Kochi was never liable to be regularised and, hence, it was ordered to be demolished. The real estate firm then approached the division bench in appeal.

The division bench, though observed that the structure is illegal, said causing demolition of the structure at this stage will be more detrimental than causing it to be retained; also with a view to lessen the probable additional damage to be caused to the environment in this regard. The court then ordered Rs.1 crore as penalty, which is ‘to be used exclusively for building up the environment and to maintain ecological balance in the area situated on the eastern side of the Chilavannur river”.

The court had also observed that the construction is not in CRZ - I area [where construction is prohibited] but in CRZ – II area [where construction is possible, but to be regularised]. This is more so, since only a portion of the entire property is coming under CRZ - II area and with regard to the other portion, the CRZ notification is having no application, but for the applicability of EIA clearance, the bench observed.

Read the Judgment here.

This article has been made possible because of financial support from Independent and Public-Spirited Media Foundation.

Image from here.

Next Story