LAW OF INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT

Name: Umadevi Kamalnath Achari

Roll No.:01

Question 1:
Why is CRZ Important? Buttress your answer with any 3 case law
headnotes.

The Coastal Regulation Zone Notification (CRZ) in India is of paramount

importance due to its role in protecting the fragile coastal ecosystems and the
livelihoods of coastal communities. The coastal areas are not only home to
diverse marine and aquatic life but also serve as crucial buffers against the
impacts of climate change and natural disasters. The CRZ Notification was
initially welcomed as a progressive law aimed at regulating human and
industrial activities along the coastline to prevent unregulated development that
could harm these sensitive areas.
The implementation of the CRZ Notification is crucial for maintaining the
ecological balance of coastal regions and ensuring sustainable development.
By restricting certain activities like large constructions, industrial setups, and
mining near the coastline, the CRZ Notification aims to protect the
environment and preserve the natural beauty of these areas. Additionally, the
notification plays a key role in safeguarding the livelihoods of coastal
communities that depend on fishing and other marine-related activities for their
sustenance.
Despite its importance, the CRZ Notification has faced challenges in its
implementation, including issues related to enforcement and compliance.
There have been instances where economic interests have been prioritized over
environmental concerns, leading to violations of the notification's provisions.
 Headnote of the Case Laws:

1. S. Jagannath Vs Union of India:

The case pertains to the conflict between traditional and intensive methods of
shrimp culture in coastal areas, leading to environmental degradation and
pollution. The petitioner, Mr. Mehta, raised concerns about the adverse impact
of shrimp farms on coastal ecosystems and freshwater availability for villagers.
The court deliberated on key issues including the applicability of the
Precautionary Principle and the Polluter Pays Principle, the necessity of
environmental impact assessments for commercial shrimp farms, and the
demolition of existing aquaculture facilities in the coastal regulation zone.
In its ruling, the court recognized the detrimental effects of the shrimp culture
industry on the coastal environment and marine ecology, prohibiting the
establishment of new shrimp farms in disputed areas. It mandated
environmental impact assessments for future installations and ordered the
demolition of existing aquaculture facilities by a specified deadline.
Additionally, aquaculture facilities near Chilka and Pulicat Lakes were
directed to compensate affected parties according to the Polluter Pays
principle. The judgment underscored the importance of sustainable
development and the implementation of environmental principles in coastal
management. The writ petition was granted with costs, and funds collected
from coastal states were directed to Mr. M.C Mehta, Advocate, for his
assistance in the case.

2. Ratheesh K.R. v. State Of Kerala (2013 KLJ 4 120)

 The case concerns alleged violations of Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ)
Notifications issued in 1991 and 2011, including encroachment on puramboke
land and kayal. The respondents are accused of taking no action despite these
violations, with allegations of improper issuance of building permits by the
panchayat. The Fisheries Department issued a license, and compensation was
sanctioned by the government for affected parties. The main issue is whether
there has been a breach of the CRZ Notifications and encroachment on
puramboke land and kayal. The petitioner argues for intervention, citing
violations of the Coastal Zone Regulations and the CRZ Notifications. The
court holds that backwater islands are covered by the 1991 Notification,
rejecting claims to the contrary, and deems the reduction of the No
Development Zone from 100 meters to 50 meters as arbitrary and illegal. The
court rules in favor of the petitioner, issuing a writ of mandamus for
compensation and ordering the cessation of all construction activities violating
the CRZ Notifications.

3. The Case of Vanashakti & Anr. V. UOI & Ors.

In a public interest litigation, the Bombay High Court addressed the validity of
an Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and
Climate Change (MoEFCC), pertaining to violations arising from non-
compliance with the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification. The
Memorandum outlined procedures for rectifying violations by project
proponents, allowing ongoing activities in coastal regulation zones to be
brought into compliance based on Coastal Zone Management Authority
(CZMA) recommendations. Petitioners challenged this, alleging it facilitated
the regularization of illegal projects. The court found the Memorandum diluted
environmental laws and principles, notably the Environment (Protection) Act,
1986. It restrained the Ministry from granting clearances or permissions based
on the Memorandum, citing its inconsistency with established legal precedents
and environmental governance principles.

The ruling reflects concerns about ex post facto environmental clearances,

which undermine the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle.
Ex post facto clearances disregard the need for thorough environmental
assessments before project approvals, hindering effective risk assessment and
mitigation. The court's decision underscores the importance of upholding
environmental principles and accountability in regulatory enforcement. It
signals a commitment to safeguarding ecological integrity, particularly in
vulnerable coastal ecosystems, and highlights the necessity for stringent
environmental governance to prevent irreversible environmental harm

Question 2:
How many Heritage Structure Grades are there in Mumbai? Explain each
grade in brief with 2 examples of each.

In India, Listed Heritage Buildings or Listed Heritage Structures can be

categorized into three grades. These grades determine the level of significance
and preservation requirements for each heritage structure or precinct. It's
important to note that listing these structures or precincts doesn't prohibit
changes in ownership or usage. However, any change of use must receive prior
approval from the Heritage Conservation Committee to ensure that it aligns
with the harmonious preservation of the listed heritage site.
GRADE- 1 GRADE-II GRADE-111

Heritage Grade-I Heritage Grade-II Heritage Grade-III

comprises buildings and (A&B) comprises of comprises building and
precincts of national or buildings and precincts of importance
historic importance, precincts of regional or for townscape; that
embodying excellence local importance evoke architectural,
in architectural style, possessing special aesthetic, or
design, technology and architectural or sociological interest
material usage and/or aesthetic merit, or through not as much as
aesthetics; they may be cultural or historical in Heritage Grade-II.
associated with a great significance though of a These contribute
historic event, lower scale than to determine the
personality, movement Heritage Grade-I. They character of the locality
or institution. are local landmarks, and can be
They have been and are which contribute to the representative of
the prime landmarks of image and identity of lifestyle of a particular
the region. the region. They community or
All natural sites shall may be the work of region and may also be
fall master craftsmen or distinguished by
within Grade-I. may be models of setting , or special
Heritage Grade-I richly proportion and character of the façade
deserves careful ornamentation or and uniformity of
preservation designed to suit a height, width and scale.
particular climate. Heritage Grade-II
Heritage Grade-II deserves
deserves intelligent conservation
intelligent conservation. (though on a lesser
scale
than Grade-II and
special protection to
unique features and
attributes)
Examples: General Post Examples: Birla House, Examples: Union
 Office and Fragment of Nair Building Building, Chury House
Old Fort Wall

Question 3:
Write headnotes for any 3 Landmark cases under the Land Acquisition
Act.
1. Bharatsing v. State Of Maharashtra (2015 SCC ONLINE BOM 6306)
The case pertains to the re-determination of compensation under section 28A
of the Land Acquisition Act, initiated by the petitioners following the
acquisition of their property for a public purpose. Despite an initial
enhancement of compensation by the reference Court and subsequent
confirmation in appellate proceedings, the petitioners sought further re-
determination based on the same award. The Court, while acknowledging the
provision in section 28A for re-determination of compensation based on
awards under Part III of the Act, emphasized the need for a single application
per applicant. Citing the judgment in Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari, the
Court clarified the conditions for valid applications under section 28A,
highlighting that only one application can be moved for re-determination of
compensation by an applicant. The Court found the successive application by
the petitioners not entertain able and rejected the writ petition, emphasizing the
limitations on multiple applications for re-determination of compensation
under section 28A. This decision provides clarity on the procedural
requirements for seeking re-determination of compensation under the Land
Acquisition Act, ensuring a streamlined and consistent approach to such
applications.
2. State Of Maharashtra v. Karbhari Balwant Bhalerao (2017 SCC ONLINE
BOM 6529)
The case concerns the condonation of delay in filing appeals against a land
acquisition award, where the delay was attributed to procedural requirements
and scrutiny. The Court dismissed Civil Applications 2099 of 1999, 2107 of
1999, and 2109 of 1999 due to the lengthy delay of 860 days, emphasizing the
need for a satisfactory explanation for such delays. Citing the precedent set in
the Postmaster General v. Living Media India Limited case, the Court
highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and the lack of
justification for condoning delays without sufficient cause. The Court
underscored the significance of diligence in filing appeals and recommended
the establishment of a Committee by the State Government to oversee the
timely filing of appeals in land acquisition matters, ensuring adherence to
procedural requirements. This decision serves as a reminder of the importance
of timely action in legal proceedings and highlights the need for diligence and
adherence to statutory provisions to avoid undue delays.

4. Ram Chand And Others v. Union Of India And Others (1994 SCC (1) 44, JT
1993 (5) 465)
The case concerns land acquisition proceedings initiated between 1959 and
1965, where awards were delayed until 1980, 1981, and 1983 despite
declarations under Section 6 being made in 1966 and 1969. The delay in
completing the proceedings prompted writ petitions and a civil appeal to quash
the acquisition proceedings. The Court found the delay unreasonable,
emphasizing the requirement under the Land Acquisition Act to conclude
proceedings without undue delay.
The Court allowed the writ petitions and civil appeal in part, ordering the
petitioners to be paid an additional amount of compensation calculated at the
rate of twelve per cent per annum. This additional compensation was to be paid
from two years after August 23, 1974, until the date of the awards by the
Collector. The compensation was to be based on the market value of the lands
at the time of the notifications under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act.
The Court reasoned that while the Act requires awards to be made and
compensation paid before land vests in the government, the slow progress of
land acquisition proceedings violated this principle. The Court highlighted the
provisions of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, which introduced
time limits for making declarations and awards under the Act. The Court also
noted that Section 28 of the Act applies only to the excess amount determined
by the Court after a reference, and the power of the Court under Article 142
must be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily.