Kerala High Court: In the present public interest litigation, the petitioner pointed out the destruction of dense mangrove forests in Kunhimangalam Village, Payyanur Taluk, Kannur District, in order to convert the area into a commercial resort. The Division Bench of Nitin Jamdar*, CJ., and Basant Balaji, J., condemned the inaction of the official respondents and stated that the situation was created because they did not take any action in time to prevent the damage, and the issue was dealt with in a pedantic manner. It was thus observed that they were under statutory obligation to implement protective measures within designated protected zones and to actively prevent any unauthorized constructions therein while giving them three months to do the same.
Background:
In Kunhimangalam Village, around 30 acres of mangrove forests were declared as a reserved forest with Resurvey No. 81 and 82 falling under the Coastal Regulation Zone (‘CRZ’) IA and IB. The area had a high degree of protection, with no development activity allowed without the permission of the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change. The petitioner approached the Court noticing the large-scale destruction of thick mangrove forests in the village by Respondents 15 and 16. The petitioner sought directions to the official respondents to prevent the illegal destruction of mangrove forests and steps be taken to restore the land to its original position.
The Secretary of the Gram Panchayat stated that the Panchayat had not granted any permission under the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019 (‘Rules of 2019’) to Respondents 15 and 16 for any development activities. On 29-05-2023, the Division Bench directed the District Collector to constitute a committee to inspect the site and file a report with respect to the applicability of CRZ to the land, and directed the Tahsildar, the Village Officer, and the Grama Panchayat to ensure that Respondents 15 and 16 maintain the status quo. The District Collector constituted a three-member team of Tahsildar, Range Forest Officer, Kannur Range, and a representative from the State Wetland Authority, that submitted a report stating that the constructed roads in CRZ-IA area violated the provisions of CRZ Notification, 2011. The District Collector issued an order directing the removal of the constructed roads in the CRZ-IA area. The Range Forest Officer was directed to cultivate mangroves at least three times within Resurvey No. 81 and ensure the cultivation and growth of mangroves, at the expense of Respondents 15 and 16.
The Site Inspection Report stated that the mangrove area in Resurvey Nos. 81 and 82 was 7544.90 sq. metres and 181.65 sq. metres, respectively. Thus, as per Clause 7(i)(A)(a) of the CRZ Notification, 2011, in case the mangrove area was more than 1000 sq. metres, a buffer of 50 meters along the mangroves must be provided. The 50 metres buffer along the mangroves was demarcated, and the total mangrove buffer area of 25087.6072 sq. metres was shown as CRZ IA. The report also stated that two roads were constructed in Resurvey No. 81 with total area measuring up to 28.7 cents. The mangrove area destructed by the construction of roads was 7.46 cents and 3.96 cents, respectively. It was estimated that 11.42 cents of mangroves and 16.56 cents of mangrove buffer areas were affected, and the area of road constructed in No Development Zone of CRZ III was 0.72 cents.
Analysis:
The Court opined that mangroves grew in the area with loose and wet soil periodically submerged by tides and were a unique ecosystem with specific biodiversity. The mangrove trees also collected sediments at the tree roots, which helped protect the lives of the people and prevent property damage from flooding. Therefore, the protection of this ecosystem was the foremost priority, as once damaged, its natural integrity and ecological functions could not be readily reconstructed. The Court divided the matter into two parts — destruction of the mangroves and the restorative measures to be undertaken.
A. Destruction of the mangroves
The Court opined that the way the destruction of the mangrove area was carried out was a matter of serious concern. The Court noted that the petitioner had, as early as in January and February 2023, written to various authorities, bringing to their attention that certain individuals engaged in the real estate business were reclaiming water bed areas and paddy fields along the riverbank by depositing earth on a large scale in Resurvey Nos. 81 and 82 of Kunhimangalam Village. These individuals made roads and destroyed mangroves on a large scale to convert the area into a commercial resort. He had also pointed out that the destruction of mangrove forests would affect the biodiversity and environment of the river, obstruct the free flow of water, and affect the inter-tidal zone.
The Court observed that the area, which was ecologically sensitive, was the breeding ground of water bound species like otter, crabs, shrimps and prawns, mollusks, and the building waste and plastic waste being dumped in the area would cause serious adverse consequences for the environment.
The Court noted that Respondents 15 and 16 had not submitted an application to the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority or to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, for construction of road in the ecologically sensitive areas, and therefore, opined that the road violated the CRZ Notification, 2019, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (‘Act of 1986’), the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and the Rules framed thereunder, because it could not be considered as an exceptional case since the report showed that the road did not have any connectivity and was not even required since there was no human settlement along the banks of Pullankode Puzha.
The Court observed that the Act of 1986 read with the CRZ Notifications, casted a duty on the authorities to take measures for the protection of areas falling within the protected zones and to ensure that unauthorized constructions were prevented, and thus, the authorities must be vigilant by themselves about the illegalities taking place in the area, and periodical site inspections must be carried out.
B. Restorative measures
The Court was dissatisfied with the approach of the official respondents. The Deputy Conservator of Forests had filed a sketchy affidavit that referred only to past events and stated that it was decided to remove the soil that had been unloaded in the mangrove area and, at present, the soil and debris had been removed and the mangrove plants had started to grow. Finding the explanation perfunctory, the Division Bench had directed the Conservator of Forests, Social Forestry, Northern Region, Kozhikode, to file an affidavit not only explaining the delay but also providing a timeline for compliance with the report.
The Court noted the affidavit filed by the Conservator of Forests, regarding the restoration of the area, which stated that the delay in planting mangrove saplings was due to seasonal seed availability, slow nursery development, and incomplete debris removal from the damaged site. The seeds were only available from March to June 2024, so nurseries were raised in March 2024. Since the debris were not removed from the site, the planting was postponed and later the seedlings were planted at another location. So, a new nursery had to be raised for planting in the destructed area and if the debris would be removed, the destructed area could be eco-restored by October 2025 or November 2025.
The Court opined that the restorative measures which were required to be taken in 2003 were not yet completed, and even after the Inspection Report was submitted, hardly any action was taken by the Social Forestry Department, which was to be further delayed because of the rains. The Court condemned the official respondents and stated that the situation was created because they did not take any action in time to prevent the damage, and the issue was dealt with in a pedantic manner. The Court observed that it was necessary to impose a strict time limit on them to ensure that the area was restored and granted them three months’ time to do the needful.
Decision:
The Court issued the following directions:
-
Respondents 1 to 14 must coordinate to clear all waste from the Kunhimangalam site and restore it. The mangrove replantation must be completed within three months. The Conservator of Forests, Social Forestry, Kozhikode, was responsible for ensuring compliance with support from other government agencies.
-
The State Government would formulate a plan focused on regular mangrove monitoring in Kunhimangalam, and take swift action to prevent future violations.
-
Till the plan was put in place, the three-member team of Tahsildar, Range Forest Officer and Range Environmental Engineer would make periodical visits and submit reports regarding violations of Coastal Regulation Zone Notification. Upon any such violation, the District Collector would forward the matter to the officer concerned, who would take immediate action as required by law.
-
The Collector would develop a mechanism, such as a phone number, email, or social media, etc., by which vigilant citizens or organisations could bring violations to the Collector’s notice to aid the task of the three-member team.
[P.P. Rajan v. State of Kerala, WP(C) No. 13495 of 2023, decided on 13-10-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mahesh V. Ramakrishnan, Praveen K.S., Advocates.
For the Respondents: Prakash M.P., M. Sasindran, Mathew Kuriakose, G. Gireesh, Moni George, J. Krishnakumar (Adoor), Advocates.