- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
SC order of demolition of the complexes in Maradu in Kerala leads to protests
The Supreme Court had on 6 Sept ordered the demolition of the complexes in Maradu near the backwaters of Ernakulam as the construction had violated the Coastal Regulatory Zone rules. The deadline for the demolition was set up as 20th September 2019. The eviction of the occupants remained unsuccessful.The flat owners and a section of the public are, however, unwilling to move out of their...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The Supreme Court had on 6 Sept ordered the demolition of the complexes in Maradu near the backwaters of Ernakulam as the construction had violated the Coastal Regulatory Zone rules. The deadline for the demolition was set up as 20th September 2019. The eviction of the occupants remained unsuccessful.
The flat owners and a section of the public are, however, unwilling to move out of their homes. Holding placards and shouting slogans, they have been protesting the court’s order and have garnered support from the ruling Communist Party.
The Maradu complex comprises 356 flats in five buildings and 240 families are living there. The Apex Court had also asked the Kerala Chief Secretary to be present before the Justice Arun Mishra-headed Bench on September 23.
The Maradu municipality served notices to flat owners to vacate the premises. But the flat owners began a relay hunger strike. According to the flat owners of the four apartment complexes, they did not know about the violations at the time of purchase and were not party to the court case.
The CRZ restrictions are also contested. According to a fact-finding committee appointed by the state which submitted its report in the Supreme Court, Maradu falls under ‘CRZ-III’ category, where 200 meters from the high tide line is no construction zone. However, Maradu was upgraded from a Panchayat into a Municipality in 2010, when normally it should have become a lesser-restricted ’CRZ-II’ zone.
The re-classification however, has not been applied yet, as the successive Union Governments chose to freeze all reclassification of CRZ areas for stricter conservation. Therefore, the flats there are technically still in CRZ-III, making them illegal, whereas if the government had completed its due process, they would have been legal.