CHAPTER 8

Coastal Zone Management

A. INTRODUCTION

India has a coastline of approximately 6,000 kilometers. Developmental

measures have
already created manifold problems on the coastline.
Mushrooming housing colonies, sites for industries, tourism endeavors which
are unwise, and utilisation of coastal lands for other purposes, hit the natural
development of the coastal towns and villages in the country, which were till
now in consonance with their traditionalMechanisation of the fishing
mores.
industry, increase of pollution from municipal wastes and over-exploitation
of industrial resources in the areas, have brought about adverse
ecological
consequences.
Ocher nations having a long coast linc, take meticulous care in tegulating
use of their coast. A coastal nation imposes coastal management regulations
for the benefit of the nation as a whole. They aim at fulfilling the aspirations
of the present generation, as well as those of the succeeding generations. The
Coastal Zone Management Act 1972 (CZMA) of United States of America
is a notable illustration. It declares to preserve, protect, develop, and where
possible to restore and enhance the resources of the nation's coastal zone for |
the present and succecding generations, and envisages the programmes for
the wise use of the lands and resources. It fully considers ecological, cultural,
historic, and acsthetic values as well as the needs of economic development.
The legislation in protecting the coastal zones of USA is indeed impregnated
with the idea of sustainable development. CZMA defines coastal zones as
one consisting 'of coastal waters and adjacent shore land, which are strongly
influenced by each other. "The coastal zone will include 'islands, transitional
and inter-tidal areas, salt marshes, wet lands and beaches'. The coastal zones
of USA extend seawards to other areas, and to the outer limits of the territorial
sea. Consequently, the landward extension starts from the shoreline lands, the
use of which have a direct and signiticant impact on the coastal waters.
 Environmmental Law Case Book

In India, the definition of coastal zones is given in the Coastal Regulation

Lone Notification of 1991 (CRZ Notification). The coastal zones consist
of coastal stretches of seas, bays, estuaries, creeks, rivers and backwaters,
which are influenced by tidal action. This notification was issued pursuant to
the power conferred on Ccntral Government under the Environment
Protection Act 1986 (EPA) to take all such measures that are necessary and
expedient for the purpose of protecting and improving the quality of
environment. Thus in India, instead of a specitic legislation enacted by
Parliament, a regulation framed under EPA takes care of the coastal zone
management.

B. SUMMARY OF CASES

Soon after the regulation came into force, questions relating to the
implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the CRZ Notification
came up before the Supreme Court, as well as before various high courts.In
Indian Council far Enviro-legal Action v Union ofIndia the Supreme Court
had to probe as to why there was undue delay in implementation of the
CRZ Nouification. In the case, the court directed the states and union territories,
who were entrusted to administer CRZ Notification to prepare and submit
to the Central Government, coastal zone management plans (CZMPs)
according to which the coastal management was to be carried out.
Undoubtedly, the CRZ Notification was framed with a view to protecting
and improving the eco-systems of the coastal zones of India. How far the
indiscriminate practice of commercial aquaculture has affected the ecology
of the coast was the question in SJagannath v Union of India.3 The court
said that intensive, semi-intensive, and extensive practices of aquaculture were
a real threat to the ecology and social environment in the coast. However,
traditional aquaculture could be allowed, as it did not harm the environment.
In another case, Sneha Mandal Co-operative Housing Society Ltd v Union
of India, a development activity in CRZ III, ie, relatively undisturbed areas,
was found to be valid as it was for the larger public interest. The bulk receiving
station, planned to be set up near BEST sub-station, was held to be only a

1 SO 114 (E) issued by the Ministry of Environment and Iorests dated 19 February
1991.
2 (1996) 5 SCC 281.
3 (1997) 2 SCC 87.
4 AIR 2000 Bom 121

172
 Coastal Zone Management

feeder plant supplying electricity to the station which with its underground
infrastructure was in existence prior to the year 1991.
A variety of developments in the other areas was also looked into. In MP
Rambabu vDivisional Forest Officer Andhra Pradesh High court examined
whether the holdings of the apex court relating to aquaculture in CRZ are
applicable to the operations of aquaculture in areas other than coastal zones.
There were cases in different high courts, which scrutinised whether
developments in CRZ are conducive to the object of preserving the ecology
of the coastal zones.

C. IMPORTANCE OF COASTAL ZONE

MANAGEMENT PLANS (CZMPS)

and union territories

According to the CRZ Notification, the state governments
of the coastal
have to prepare a plan relating to the future management
is as to how can the
zones within their jurisdiction. The question, however,
states and the union territories be in a position to carry on the regulatory
these plans? In the following
activities within the zones without formulating
of CZMPs
case, the Supreme
Court directed that submission and approval
looked into whether the amendments
should not be delayed. The court also
are valid.
effected by the original regulations Action v Union of India c o n c e r n for
In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal
for preventing irreversible ecological damage
the protection of ecology and
the petition under art
to the coastal areas of
the country led to the filing of
litigation. The petitioner was a
public interest
32 of the Constitution as
environment
voluntary organisation working for the cause of
registered 6,000
has a coastline running into approximately
protection in India. India attractions,
of natural endowments, geographic
kms, which has abundance
to the petitioner, these
coastal areas are highly
and natural beauty. According to development pressures.
ecosystems, sensitive
complex and have dynamic non-restrained
and of high population growth,
The s t r e s s e s pressure
facilities for the resident
and lack of adequate infrastructure
development in
be some of the factors responsible for the decline
are stated to
population coastal
these areas. The development activities in the
environmental quality in
chemical and biological changes
short-term and long-term physical,
areas bring health and environment. It was
to flora and fauna, public
that cause damage

5 AIR 2002 AP 256.

281.
6 (1996) 5 SCC
173
 Book
Bnvironmental Law Casc

Turther alleged that as a consequence of indiscriminate industrialisation and

urbanisation, without the requisite pollution control systems, the coastal waters

are highly polluted.

It is further the case of the petitioner that some ot the coastal areas
contained extensive groundwater resources and sometimes mineral resources,
while in other areas, there are iron ore, oil and gas resources, and mangrove

forests. As a result of the impact of tidal waves and cyclones, mangrove

forests are being increasingly destroyed, while some of the major fishing
areas in the country are undergoing serious damage consequent to ecologically
unsound development. Over-exploitation of groundwater in the coastal areas
in places like Madras and Vishakhapatnam is stated to have resulted in growing
intrusion of salt water to inland areas, and fresh water aquiters previously
used for drinking, agriculture and horticulture are getting highly damaged.
Unplanned urbanisation and industrialisation in the coastal belts is stated to
be causing fast disappearance of fertile agricultural lands, fruit gardens and
energy plantations like casuarina trees, that serve as windbreakers and protect
inland habitations from the cyclonic damages."
The court traced the evolution of the coastal zone norms as well the
development of Indian law on coastal management specifying the provisions
of CRZ Notification. The petitioner contended that with a view to protect
the ecological balance in the coastal areas, the aforesaid notification was issued
by the Central Government which contained various provisions for regulating
development in the coastal areas. It was further contended that there had
been a blatant violation of the CRZ Notification and industries were illegally
being set up, thereby causing serious damage to the environment and ecology
of the area.
However, there was no challenge to the validity of the CRZ Notification.
It is only the failure of enforcement of the notification, which led to the
filing of the present petition.
The apex court observed that having issued the CRZ Notification, no
follow-up action was taken either by the coastal states, or the Union. The
coastal states and union territory administrations were required to prepare
management plans within a period of one year from the date of the CRZ
Notification, but this was not done. The coastal government was to appro
the plans which were to be prepared, but it did not appear to have reminded
any of the coastal states or the union territory administrations that the plans
had not been received by it. Clause 4 of the CRZ Notification required the
Central Government and the state governments as well as union territory

7 (1996) 5 SCC 281, p 285.

8 Ibid, pp 285,286.
174
 Coastal Zone Management

administrations to monitor and enforce the provisions of the same, but no

eftectivesteps appear to have been taken, and this is what led to the filing of
the present writ petition." Some of the
interesting observations and guidelines
laid down by the court with regard to this case are as follows:

The primary effort of the court while dealing with environment related
1SSues is to see that the enforcement agencies, whether it be the state or
any other authority, take effective steps for the enforcement of laws.
) Environmental law has now become a specialised field. The people
can themselves best protect the environment from
degradation.
(1 It will be more appropriate if the allegations of non-compliance are
dealt with by the respective high courts, as they would be in a better
position to know and appreciate the local conditions which are
prevailing, and the extent of environmental damage which is being
caused.
v)Taking into account the limitations of the role played by the Pollution
Control Boards, the Central Government should consider setting up
of state coastal management authorities in each state or zone, and also
a national coastal management authority, under s 3 of EPA.
v)The states, which have not yet filed management plans, were directed
to file them immediately. The Central Government was directed to
approve the plans with or without modifications instead of returning
them.

Comments

Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action case points its finger to the delay
and procrastination in implementation of the regulations regarding coastal
zones. The states simply slept over the formulation of CZMPs, although
specific period was stipulated for submission of the plans to the Central
Government. This delay provoked judicial anger. The court said that the
enactment of law and delaying its implementation for a long time are worse
than not enacting the law. According to the court, the rigid standard of coastal
zone management may not be possible in a country with regions of different
geo-physical and ecological features, One may say that even in the formulation
of the CRZ norms, these aspects should have been considered, and sateguards
tailored into the regulations. Perhaps the confusion still persists when one
notices the divergence of the opinion between the recommendations of

294.
9 (1996) 5 SCC 281, pp 293,
175
 Environmental Law Case Book

Vohra Committee and Union of India, and between Union of India and the
court. This is borne by the explicit pronouncements in the case.
There is a rising tide in the demands from the coastal states for relaxation
of norms. While some asked for the reduction in the area of no-development
zone (NDZ), some others wanted to water down the prohibitions and
restrictions within CRZ. In response to these demands, the Central
Government has changed the regulations on more occasions than one. This
may lead one to conclude that there exists confusion in the norms.

D. IMPACT OF AQUACULTURE

Many types of activities in the ecologically fragile areas may lead to degradation
of ecology. Indiscriminate practices of aquaculture in the coastal zone may
bring incalculable harm. In the case discussed herein below, the Supreme
Court dealt with the impact of aquaculture on coastal zones in a detailed
mannet.

Impact in the Coast al Zones

In SJagannath v Linion of India, the petitioner, the Chairman of a voluntary

organisation for the upliftment of the weaker sections of the society, sought
to enforce the CRZNotification. He prayed for stopping intensive, extensive,
and semi-intensive aquaculture. He further requested that a National Coast
Development Authority be established. The judgment of the apex court was
delivered on the following note:

Shrimp (prawn) culture industry is taking roots in India. Since long,

the fishermen in India have been following the traditional rice/
shrimp rotating aquaculture system. Rice is grown during part of
the year and shrimp and other fish species are cultured during the
rest of the year. However, during the last decade the traditional
system, which, apart from producing rice, produced 140 kgs of
shrimp per hectare of land, began to give way to more intensive
methods of shrimp culture, which could produce thousands of
kilograms per hectare. A large number of private companies and
multinational corporations have started investing in shrimp farms.
In the last few years, more than eighty thousand hectares of land
have been converted to
shrimp farming. India's marine export

10 (1997) 2 SCC 87.

176
 Coastal Zonc Management

weighed in at 70,000 tonnes in 1993 and these exports are

to reach 200 thousand projected
tonnes by the year 2000. The shrimp farming
advocates regard
aquaculture as
potential
developing saviour of
countries because it is a
short-duration crop that a
high provides
investment return and
enjoys an
expanding market. The said
expectationis sought to be
achieved by replacing the environmentally
benign traditional mode of culture by
semi-intensive and intensive
methods. More and more areas are
intensive and intensive modes being brought under semi-
of shrimp
environmental impact of farming. The
mode of culture
shrimp culture essentially depends on the
adopted
trend of more intensified
in the shrimp
farming. Indeed, the new
shrimp farming in certain parts of the
country-without much control of feeds, seeds and other inputs
and water
management practices has brought to the fore a serious
threat to the environment and ecology.
In the same vein, the court continued:
Coastal pollution, universally, is
India is emerging problem. So far as
an

concerned, it has already become serious environmental

a

problem. Besides direct dumping of waste materials in the

discharge through marine outfalls, large volumes of untreatedseas, or
semi-treated wastes generated in various land based
activities ultimately find way to the seas. The coastal sources/
waters directly
receive the inland waters, by
of way surface run-off and land-
drainage, laden with myriad of refuse materialsthe rejects or
wastes of the civilisation. Apart from
inputs from rivers and effluent
outfalls, coastal areas are subject to intensive
the
fishing, navigational
activities, recreations, ports, industrial discharge and harbours which
are causative factors of water
quality degradation to varying degrees.
Contrary to the open sea, the changes in the quality of coastal
waters are much greater due river
to
discharges under tidal
conditions.
With noticeable increase in marine pollution and the
consequential
decline in marine resources, serious concern was
expressed in the
United Nations' Conference on Human Environment in Stockholm
(1972) attracting global attention towards the urgent need of
idenifying the critically polluted areas of the marine environments,

11 (1997) 2 SCC 87, pp 91,92.

12 bid, p 94.
177
 Book
Environmental Law Case

Specially in coastal waters, for urgent remedial actions. The

COnrerence unanimously resolved that the littoral states should take
early action at their national level for assessment and control of
marine pollution from all sources and cafry out systematic

actions
monitoring to ascertain the efficacy of pollution regulatory
taken by them. In the background of the Stockholm Conference
and in view of 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea, defining
jurisdiction of territorial waters, a model comprehensive action

plan has been evolved under the United Nations Environment

Programme (UNEP). Keeping with the international commitments
and in greater national interest, the Government of India and the

governments of the coastal states are under a legal obligation to

control marine pollution and protect the coastal environment.

Traditional Aquaculture Different from Commercialised System

The court pointed out:

Aquaculture has been practiced for many centuries by small farmers

and fisher folk in Asia to improve their living conditions. However,
there is a vast difference between the traditional methods and the
new commercialised system. The traditional aquaculture, including
shrimp, is usually small scale, using low inputs and relies on natural
tidal action for water-exchange. In some countries such as India,
Bangladesh and Thailand, there is a tradition of rice/shrimp rotating,
with rice-grown part ot the year and shrimp and other fish species
cultured the rest of the year. Chemicals, antibiotics and processed
feeds are not used in the traditional method. In this low-vield, natural
ethod, the harvest is small but sustainable over long periods. It
has no adverse effect on the environment and ecology. The modern
method, on the other hand, is larger in scale and intensive or semi-
intensive in nature. It is owned and operated by commercial and
often foreign-owned companies, which mainly export the shrimp.
In intensive aquaculture, selected species are bred using a dense
stocking rate. To maintain the very crowded shrimp population
and attain higher production etficiency, artificial feed, chemical
additives and antibiotics are used,14

13 (1997) 2 SCC 87, pp 94, 95.

14 Ibid, pp 96, 97.

178
 (astal one Manapcment

Adverse Effects of Commercialised Systemm

The court detail thc report of Dr K Alayiriswami, filed as annezure
discussced in

a n organ of
to the study by the Food and Agriculturc Organisation (F'AO)
to
Unitcd Nations Organisation. This rcport rcfers mainly to facts rclating
do not
cvils of aquaculturc. The regulations of the Pollution Control Boards
relate to efflucnt discharges specific to aquaculturc. Bccausc of dykes, the

natural drain is blockcd. This lcads to flood watcr accumulation in the villages
in the hintcrland. Salinisation in wells and agricultural farms create social
their
problems. Pcoplc arc compcllcd to take a longer route to the sea for
when
opcration. Aquaculture affects mangroves. Paddy fields may disappear
sustainable
they are Converted nto fish farms. According to Alagiriswami,
of
devcopmcnt for shrimp aquaculture should be guided by the principles
SOCial cquity, nutritional security, environmental protection, and economic
He
devclopment holistic approach to achicve long-term
with a
benefits.
advocatcd a carcful development of CZMPs with regulations on use/ban
of drugs and chemicals, and devclopment of standards of effluent discharge
as applicable to local conditions.
In this casc, it was strongy contended that modern techniques of shrimp
the coastal environment and
farming are highly polluting, and detrimental to

marine ccology. It was also vchemently contended that setting up of shrimp

farms on the coastal stretches of seas, bays, estuaries, creeks, rivers, and
backwaters up to 500 metres from the High Tide Line (HTL) and the line
between thc Low Tide Line (TL) and the HTL is totally prohibited under
para 2 of the CRZ Notification.

Shrimp Culture and CRZ Notification

Shrimp culture industry needs no foreshore facility or waterfront. Hence, it

docs not come within the cxemptions of CRZ Notification. What is required
is only brackish water that can be drawn by pipes, The court observed:

The purpose of CRZ Notification is to protect thc ccologically

fragile coastal arcas and to safeguard the acsthetic qualities and uses
of the sea coast. 'The setting up of modern shrimp aquaculture
farms right on the sca coast and construction of ponds and othcr
infrastructure thercon is per se hazardous and is bound to degracde
the marine ecology, coastal environment and the aesthctic uses of
the sea cost. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the
shrimp culturc industry is neither 'cdircctly related to waterfront

179
 Case Book
Bnvironmental Law

1or directly needing foreshore facilities'. The setting up ot shrimp

Calture farms vithin the prohibited areas under the CRZ

Notification cannot be permitted.

The court went on:

dea coast and beaches are a gift of nature to the mankind. The
aesthetic qualities and recreational utility of the said area has to be
maintained. Any activity which has the effect of degrading the
environment cannot be permitted. Apart from that, the right of
the tishermen and farmers living in the coastal areas to eke their
cannot be denied to them.
iving by way of fishing and farming
Alagarswami Report states that 'the shrimp
farms do not provide
have reach
the beach for traditional fishermen who
to
access to
and entry is restricted
the sea from their villages. As farms are located
the sea for their
the fishermen have to take a longer route to

operation. This is being objected to by traditional fishermen

The Alagarswami Report further highlights drinking water problem,

salinization and destruction of mangrove by the shrimp culture

been quoted above.
industry. The relevant paragraphs have already
The increase of stocking densities, heavy inputs of high energy
feeds, use of drugs and chemicals result in the discharge of highly

polluted effluents into the sea, creeks etc and on the sea coast by
the shrimp farms.16

National Environmental Engineering Resear ch Institute

(NEERI) Findinggs
caused to
The NEERI gave a positive finding to the effect that the damage
than the earnings
ecology and economics by the aquaculture farming is higher
taken into
from the sale of coastal aquaculture produce. The parameters
earned,
consideration are land, equivalent wages for the farmers to be
or
amount of agricultural produce (rice, husk), loss due to cutting
equivalent
involving
Casuarina in terms of fuel, loss in terms of grazing grounds, loss
loss e
diseases, loss caused by cyclones due to cutting of Casuarina forests,
to
to desertification
of land, loss in terms of potable water, total loss due
loss in fishing income, loss due to damage of fishing
mangrove destruction,

15 (1997) 2 SCC 87,p 105.

16 Ibid, p 106.

180
 Coastal Zone Management

nets, and man-days lost due to non-approachability to sea coast. These losses
are computed in money, and are then compared with the total earnings frOn
the sale of coastal aquaculture produce. On the basis of the assessment or
socio-economic status ot aquaculture in a systematic manner, NEERI has
reached the conclusion that the damage caused to ecology and economics by
aquaculture farming is higher than the earnings from the sale of coastal
aquaculture produce.
In this context, the court held:

The two NEERI reportsclearly indicate that due to commercial

aquaculture farming, there is considerable degradation of the
mangrove ecosystems, depletion of casuarina
of potable waters, reduction in fish plantations, pollution
catch, and blockage of direct
approach to the seashore. Agriculture lands and salt farms are being
converted into commercial
has
aquaculture farms. The ground water
contaminated
got due to
seepage of impounded water trom
the aquaculture farms. Highly polluted effluents are discharged by
the shrimp farms into the sea and the
on sea coast.

Social Costs

The extensively perused the two reports by NEERI, which dealt with
court
the
ecological, social, and economic problems posed by aquaculture practices
1n various parts of the
country. The
court also examined Suresh Committee
Report the
on of
impact shrimp farms along Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry.
The said Committee listed the
impact under various heads-effluent pollution;
salinisation; feed and wastes; fertilisers and therapeutants; loss of mangroves
and biodiversity; loss of biodiversity in
Cauvery flood plain and delta;
threatened wetlands of national and international importance; impact on
agriculture; and denial of potable water.
The court pointed out:

The social and environmental costs of the expanding shrimp industry

are closely inter-related. Pollution and other types of natural resource
degradation induced by shrimp farming have been considerably
highlighted in the NEERI Reports and other material quoted and
discussed by us. Social and environmental changes resulting from
expanding shrimp industry in coastal areas are largely due to the

17
(1997) 2 SCC 87, p 126.
181
 Book
Environmental Law Case

lands, waters and forests

COnversion into shrimp farms of the
uses. In fact, shrimp farms
which were earlier dedicated to other
other agriculture, aquaculture,
are
developing at the expense of
better suited in many places for
TOrest usesand fisheries that are
requirements. Intensive and
meeting local food and employment
hardly seem to meet
Semi-intensive types of shrimp production

these requirements." of coastal

an important
component
Mangrove forests constitute muddy
salt marshes and
ecosystems. thrive in tidal estuaries,
They tarms signiticantly
to shrimp
cOastines. Conversion of mangrove
as well as
natural production of
wild capture shrimp
reduces the
role for low-lying coastal
other fishes. Moreover, their production
their replacement by shrimp ponds.
regions is rapidly diminishing by
constitute one of the biggest
mangrove
The Sundarbans, which
about 12,000 sq kms
areas in the world,
covered in the early 1990s
West Bengal part of Sundarbans,
in India and Bangladesh. In the
have been replaced by the shrimp
ponds.
largemangrove areas has meant a
The increasing need for land by shrimp
entrepreneurs
installation of
areas. After the
dramatic rise in land prices in many
rise astronomically. Local
farms near village lands, prices
shrimp while indebted
to purchase land,
farmers c a n no longer afford
coastal
farmers are tempted to sell
their holdings. Much of the
used for
converted into shrimp farms was previously
land recently
food crops and traditional fishing.

The court further observed:

sedimentation in intensive shrimp ponds is posing

Large amounts of
serious disposal problems for shrimp farmers. From 100 to 500
tons of sediment per hectare per year are apparently accumulating
used to produce about 5 tons
Since only some 10 tons of feed is
about where
of shrimpP per hectare per year, this raises questions
such incredible quantities of sediment come from (RRo enberry,
1994a: 42). Ponds are cleaned after each crop cycle and the sediments
are often discarded in waterways leading into the sea, or they are
sometimes used to build dykes. Their putrefaction inside and outside
the ponds causes foul odour, hypernutrification and eutrophisation,

18 (1997) 2 SCC 87, p 136.

19 Ibid, pp 136,137.

182
 Coastal 2one Management

siltation and turbidity of water courses and estuaries, with

detrimental implications on local fauna and flora...
Biodiversity Losses:The impacts of semi-intensive and intensive
shrimp aquaculture on biodiversity ('the totality of genes, specics
and ecosystems in a region') arc multiple. This is becausc of the
land area they cover, the water they pollute; the water circulation
systems they alter; the wild fish and crustaccan habitats they replace;
the risks they pose of disease
transfer; the impacts of rcleasecl
raised shrimp on the genetic diversity and resilience of
indigenous
shrimp and possibly also their negative impacts on other native
fauna and flora...2
Health Hazards: Health hazards to local populations living near
or
working in shrimp farms have been observed in several
places.
For instance, in Tamil Nadu (Quaid-c-Milleth District near
Pondicherry) an approximatcly 1500 acre large shrimp farm has
been reported to have caused eight deaths from previously unknown
diseases within a period of two months following the installation
of the aquaculture farm (Naganathan et al., 1995:607). There are
numerous hazards to public
health along the shrimp production
chain from the farnmers through the various processors to the often
distant consumers. The workers employed on shrimp farms handle
several potentially dangerous chemicals, and may be exposed to
unsanitary working conditions.22

According to a UN Report, intensive ponds have a maximum life of only 5

to 10 ycars. Abandoned ponds can no longer be used for shrimp, and there
are few known alternative uses for them except some other types of
aquaculture. Apparently they can seldom be economically rehabilitated for
other uses such as crop land.

Plea of Violation of Statutes

Aricle 48-A of the Constitution states that 'the State shall endeavour to protect
and improve the environment and to sateguard the forests and wildlife of
the country'. Article 51-A ot the onstuatton imposes as one of the
Fundamental Duties on every citizen, the duty to protect and improve the

20 (1997) 2 SCC 87, p 138

21 Tbid, pp 138, 139.
22 lbid, p 139.

183
 Environmental Lawv Case Book

natural environment including forests, lakes, ivers and wildlife, and to h

compassion for living creatures. The Environment (Protection) Act19
(EPA) was enacted as a result of the decisions taken at the United Natio
Conference on Human Environment held at Stockholm in June 1972
which India also participated.
The apex court in SJagannath quoted the Statement of Objects and Reaso
to EPA before going to the definitions of 'environment, environmen
pollutant, 'environmental pollution' and hazardous substance' contain
therein. Then, it cited ss 7 and 8 of EPA.
The court then quoted observations in Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum
Union of India" regarding concepts of 'sustainable development, andth
it has specifically accepted 'the precautionary principle' and 'the polluter
pa
prineiple which were stated as part of the environmental laws of the lan
The court quoted the relevant part of the judgment:24

Some of the salient principles of 'sustainable development, as culled

out from Brundtland Report and other interrnational documents,
are inter-generational equity, use and conservation of natural
resources, environmental protection, the precautionary principle,
polluter pays principle, obligation to assist and cooperate, eradication
of poverty and financial assistance to the developing countries.
The court reiterated the view that 'the precautionary principle' and
the polluter pays principle are essential features of 'sustainable
development'. The 'precautionary principle-in the context of the
municipal law--means:
Environmental measures-by the state government and the
statutory authorities must anticipate, prevent and attach, the
causes of environmental
degradation.
i) Where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage,
lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for
postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.
1) The 'onus of proof' is on the actor or
the development/
industrialist to show that his action is
environmentally benign.
The court in SJagannath, therefore, held:
We are of the view that bcfore
any shrimp industry or shrimp
pond is permitted to be installed in the ecology fragile coastal aret
it must pass through a strict environment test. There has to be a

23 (1996) 5 SCC 647.

24 (1997) 2 SCC 87, p 144

184
 Coastal 2one Mlanagencnt

high powered Authority' under the Act to serutinise cach and every
case fronm the environmental point of view. There must be an
environmental impact assessnment before permission is granted to
install conmmercial shrimp farms. 'T'he conceptual franmework of
the assessment must be broad based primarily concerning
environmental degradation linked with shrimp farming The
assessment must also include the social impact on ditferent
must be
population strata in the arca. The quality of the assessment
analytically based on superior technology. It must take into
consideration the inter-generational equity and the compensation
for those who are affected and prejudiced.25

The court also gave the following directions:

Appointnment of an authority by the Central Government, vested with

all powers to protect ecologically fragile coastal areas, sea-shore, water
front and other coastal areas, and especially to deal with the situation
created by the shrimp culture industries in the coastal states/ territories.
No shrinmp culture pond can be constructed/set up within the coastal
i)
regulation zone as defined in the CRZ Notification.
salt
un) Land meant for purposes, agricultural land, mangroves,
public
forest lands shall not be used/converted for
pan lands, wetlands, and
construction of shrimp culture ponds.
The farmers who are operating traditional and improvecd traditional
iv)
for increased
systems of aquaculture may adopt improved technology
and return with prior approval of the
production, productivity,
order.
authority' constituted by this

E AQUACULTURE IN AREAS OTHER

THAN
COASTAL ZONES

arise from the the apex court

above-1nentioned decision of
Many questions
can be raised not only in
on the effects of aquaculture farming. Aquaculture
saline or brackish water, but also in fresh water. Can the state regulate

aquaculture without an enacted law if it causes any environmental pollutionP

of
other problems. Is there any law prohibiting
conversion
This leads to
agricultural lands to pisciculture tanks requiring permission from the competent
authorities? Does the decision of the apex court in SJagannath case apply to

25 (1997) 2 SCC 87, p 147.

26 Ibid, pp 147, 148.
185
 Environmental Law Case Book
n e cases where agriculturists carry on prawn culture, shrimp culture or other
ypes of aquaculture in their own agricultural lands? Will, in any event, the
laws on environmental pollution be
applicable?
As seen in ch 7, MP Rambabu v Divisional Forest Officer" relates to
aquaculture raised in an area other than saline or brackish water. It was done
in fresh water. The Andhra Pracdesh High Court held that an owner of
agricultural land near this aquaculture farm can institute a writ petition on the
ground that his land had become saline and unfit for agriculture on account
of cxtensive use of his neighboring land for prawn culture." In exercise of
its legislative competence in relation to the matter, the state issued executive
instructions prohibiting conversion of agricultural land for another purpose.
This is not bad in law.
Furthermore, enjoyment of right by the owner, it is trite, cannot be in the
manner, which would be injurious to health or otherwise hazardous.
In this connection, it may be useful to note that deep underground water
elongs to the state in the sense that doctrine of public trust extends thereto.
Holder of a land may have only a right of user, and cannot take any action or
do any deeds as a result whereof the right of others is affected. Even the
right of user is confined to the purpose for which the land is held by him,
and not for any other purpose. Even in relation to such
matters,
no
prescrptive
right under s 25 of the Limitation Act 1963 would be attracted. Further,
even by reason of s 25 of the Limitation Act, a person must exercise an
easementary right without interruption for a period of 30 years in relation to
air, way, or watercourse or the use of any water or any other easement
by
enjoying it peaceably and openly as an easement, and as of right. Then only
such exercise of right to air, way,
watercourse, use of water or other easement
becomes absolute and indefeasible. It is not the case of the
parties that they
had acquired such absolute or indefeasible
right under s 25 of the Limitation
Act

F. HOLIDAY RESORT IN CRZ

The integrity of coastal zones is maintained in India

through the mechanism
of CRZ Notification. The state governments were given discretion to
demarcate the zones in accordance with their CZMPs. Once these plans are
approved, activities in the zones are regulated by the states according to

27 AIR 2002 AP 256.

28 For the facts of the case, see ch 7.

186
 Coastal Zone Management

plans. In Goa Foundation v Diksha Holdings Pvt Ltd2" the Supreme Court
had to decide whether construction of a hotel could be allowed in a
settlement
area. The area comes under the category of CRZ III, which according to
CRZ Notification is relatively an
under-developed area. It was in the
management plan that the settlement area was marked as CRZ III. In this
plan except the settlement area, Canacona taluk was demarcated as CRZ I,
which is considered as an ecologically sensitive area.
Only the settlement area
in the said taluk was demarcated as CRZ III. There were a lot of
settlements
and built-up structures in the vicinity of the hotel site. The resort would not
disturb the sand dunes in the area. The place was also outside the no-
development zone (NDZ). Moreover, the Central Government had also
perused expert reports in detail before it granted environmental clearance. In
the circumstances, there was no ground on which the CRZ Notification
became an obstacle for the construction of the hotel. The
government applied
its mind before it gave permission. The case is significant as it points to the
role of CZMPs for zoning coastal areas, and allowing beneficial and eco-
friendly development outside the areas prohibited by CRZ Notification.
The needs of development have to be harmonized with the values of
ecology. This ought to be achieved in coastal zones only within the limits of
CRZ Notification. The availability of nature's bounty attracts and
augments
tourism in Goa. Infrastructure facilities are required to promote tourism
without causing adverse effects on the environment. A hotel cannot be
permitted in CRZ I where there is prohibition. However, the site involved in
the case is an area, which the CZMP of the state considers as CRZ II.
Construction in CRZ III is permissible if it is outside NDZ. In this context
the court found no justification as to why an environmentally benign project
should be thwarted.

G. DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN CRZ

Developmental activities cause havoc to coastal eco-system, unless the projects

are designed in a wise and sustainable manner. In Sneha Mandal Co-operative
Housing Society Ltd v Union of India" the impact of CRZ Notification on
three development projects on Mumbai coast was the issue. One of the
projects was to set up a Bulk Receiving Station', This was a feeder plant
supplying electricity to the sub-station. The sub-station, with its underground

29 AIR 2001 SC 184.

30 AIR 2000 Bom 121.

187
 Book
Environmental Law Case

and other infrastructure, was in existence before the CRZ Notification came
into force in the year 1991. The CRZ Notification permits new development
in a developed arca in CRZ I1. However, the seaward region of CRZ II is
a no-development zone or NDZ. According to Bombay High Court, the
larger public interest, namely, the need for the bulk receiving station in the
locality gets more weight when two public interests are in conflict. The
project was approved. In respect of the other two projects the court had a
different view. One was for construction of a helipad in the region surrounded
by human habitat. It was without clearance either from the Ministry of
Environment and Forests or from the State Coastal Zone Management
Authority. The other project was for change of user trom garden or
playground to housing purpose in CRZ. This was also without clearance
from the authority. Both these projects were found to be violating CRZ
regulations.

H. MULTI-STORIED BUILDING ON THE COAST

In Citizen, Consumer and Civic Action Group v Union of India,32 Madras

High Court examined permissions and prohibitions in CRZ Notification.
The Corporation of Chennai did not issue the permit for a multi-storied
building on the ground that the site was very close to Adayar river, and was
affected by the CRZ regulations. All other conditions and requirements under
law for getting permit were complete. The single judge directed the
corporation to pass the final orders within ten days. When the corporation
was proceeding to grant the building permit, there was an appeal against the
order as well as a public interest litigation to stop construction of a road
adjoining Adayar creek. The site was in a city. The prohibitions for
onstruction in CRZ II would affect the site, should the location be within
500 meters from high tide line (HTL). "The Indian Institute of Technology,
Madras, in their aerial inspection had concluded that the construction was
well outside the limit. The Tamil Nadu State Coastal Zone
Management
Authority also had such a finding The Chennai Metropolitan Development
Authority (CMDA) had already given permission. Before doing so, they had
obtained the no-objection certificate from fire service and police departments,
water and sewerage Board, and the Chief
FEngineer of Chennai Corporation.
One significant fact was that the builder had already given a gift of land

31 AIR 2000 Bom 121, pp 126, 127, 130, 131.

32 AIR 2002 Mad 298.

188
 Coastal Zone Management
iiValent to the value of
Ld accepted the gift. On theopen space reservation charges. The
basis of the
especially, revenue authorities, the court reports of the concernedcorporation
separates Adayar found that authorities,
there
creek and the site. was a road that
The
landward side of the road.
Thus, the
buildings proposed were built
come into
operation. Further, prohibitions
the area
in CRZ II will
hardly
developmental and was
booming
construction activities.3 In view with several
of all these factors and
developments, the Madras High Court had
dismissed the prayer for the
demolition of the
construction, and held that the
not hit by CRZ construction activities were
regulations.
I.COASTAL ZONE
A
MANAGEMENT-
CO-OPERATTVE VENTURE BETWEEN
THE CENTRE AND STATES

The scheme of CRZ

management in India involves a co-operative venture
by the Centre and states. Thus it is quite
evident that a
type of co-operative
federalism exists in this area of
in the CZMPs is laid down
eco-protection in India. Once the delimitation
specifically, the states and its agencies cannot go
beyond these limits in the plans in approving development activities within
thecoastal zone. After the plan is accepted, the whole responsibility shifts
from the Central Government to the state governments. Coastal management
Deing a matter of common national interest, it is necessary to evolve feasible
ystem of Centre-state co-operation in coastal zone management measures.
Obviously, the present mechanism in which the Centre leaves the issue to be
handled by the states, has to change. The need to share the financial and
d11gerial responsibilities can never be ruled out. Is not such a change in law

essential?

33 AIR 2002 Mad 298, pp 303, 304.

189