Contention advanced by learned counsel is that in so far as no separate location plan has been prepared by the local authority including the area in question as within CRZ-I, Map No.66A prepared by the KSCZMA is arbitrary and illegal. It is clear that Map No.66A prepared by the KSCZMA in the year 1995 is approved by the Central Government. It is indicated by the stand of the Society also that the area in question is included in Map No.66A prepared by the KSCZMA in that the Society has sought for a declaration in its Writ Petition and that the said plan is arbitrary and illegal. We have referred to the criteria based on which CRZ-I is categorized. Coastal line is only one of the considerations and not the only consideration for inclusion in CRZ-I. We also referred to the observations in Ext.P2, report and Ext.R4(a) that the Theme Park is situated on the banks of Valapattanam river and its branch and that even at the time of inspection (by Dr.Susarla), the area was under high tide. Therefore it is clear that the area is within the High Tide line from the Arabian Sea on the west. Though reliance is placed by the Society on Exts.P10 and P11, the photographs taken in December, 2003 from Google Earth (marking the property of the Society) to contend that even as in December, 2003 there were no mangroves in the property of petitioner, we are not inclined to accept that contention based on Exts.P10 and P11. Google Earth gives only a satellite imagery and need not always having regard to the existence of clouds, etc., give a clear picture of the area. There is no reliable evidence to show that mangroves were planted in the property in question only in the year, 2004. Map No.66A itself belies that contention.
Kerala High Court
Ansari Kannoth vs State Of Kerala Rep.By The ... on 24 January, 2011
Coram:J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
Print Page
