Supreme Court empathises with ‘middle-class’ owners who lost their homes in 2020 Maradu high-rise building demolitions

The court wondered whether the dispute could have been settled with the payment of heavy costs rather than outright demolition of the four apartment complexes

Four years after ordering the demolition of high-rise buildings at Maradu in Kerala, the Supreme Court on Wednesday (September 25, 2024) voiced empathy for the families who lost their homes, saying they were “ultimately middle-class who have suffered”.

A three-judge Bench headed by Justice B.R. Gavai asked the Kerala government to work out if “some relief” could be given to them while orally remarking that the entire dispute could have been settled by imposing heavy costs.

Also read | Lessons from Maradu

The high-rise buildings — H20 Holy Faith, Alfa Serene, Jain Coral Cove and Golden Kayaloram — were razed to the ground in January 2020 on the orders of the Supreme Court the previous year in May. The top court had found that the four apartment complexes were built in violation of Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ), which allowed construction only beyond 200m of the high tide line.

One of the lawyers appearing for the residents’ associations submitted that their demolished high-rise was not even in breach of the CRZ norms. He said the 2019 judgment had been based on the assumption that the area fell within the CRZ-III limits where no construction was permitted.. The top court had based its order on the CRZ notification of 1991, and the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Plan, 1996.

“But there was at the time a Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) prepared pursuant to a 2011 CRZ notification by which Maradu area of Ernakulam was categorised under CRZ-II… Construction was permissible,” advocate Lakshmeesh Kamath, for flat owners association, submitted.

Senior advocate Jaideep Gupta, who represented the State of Kerala along with advocate Nishe Rajen Shonker, said Kerala has already submitted another Coastal Zone Management Plan, based on a 2019 CRZ notification, to the Union government for approval.

Construction in the area may be permissible under this Plan too subject to certain restrictions, the builders, represented by senior advocates K. Parameswar, P. B. Krishnan and advocate A. Karthik, contended.

The Union Government’s counsel in turn submitted that the Plan was under active consideration and sought four weeks’ time to arrive at a decision.

Justice K.V. Viswanathan, on the Bench, asked advocate Haris Beeran, who is also a Rajya Sabha member, whether he could present a private Bill in the Upper House.

Another lawyer appearing for the residents said the structures in question were 12 to 13 kilometres away from the backwaters zone, considered ecologically fragile. He said the buildings were by the side of a manmade canal which was outside the purview of CRZ norms.

“We were nowhere in the CRZ zone. The flat owners were not heard when the May 8, 2019 order was passed… Between our property and the manmade lake, there were properties belonging to the government… The State is responsible for much of this mess,” a lawyer appearing for the residents said.

The Bench agreed to take up the case on November 6.

Published - September 25, 2024 08:46 pm IST