Kerala High Court Directs Officials to Prevent Illegal Constructions, Orders Restoration of Mangroves in Kunhimangalam
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Kerala, Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji held that government agencies have a statutory duty to prevent illegal construction and land alteration within ecologically protected areas under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Coastal Regulation Zone framework. The Bench made these remarks while ruling on a public interest plea filed by an agriculturist from Kannur, who raised concerns over extensive clearing of mangroves in Kunhimangalam village—an area falling under CRZ-IA and IB—by two private individuals for commercial development. The Court ordered restoration of the destroyed mangrove ecosystem, replantation within a fixed period, and creation of a permanent mechanism for environmental monitoring.
The case arose from a Public Interest Litigation filed by P.P. Rajan, a 67-year-old agriculturist, stating the destruction of dense mangrove forests in Resurvey Nos. 81 and 82 of Kunhimangalam Village, Payyanur Taluk, Kannur District. These mangrove areas, covering approximately 30 acres, are protected under the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) I A and I B, as per maps approved by the National Coastal Zone Management Authority. The petitioner alleged that two private individuals, identified as Respondent Nos. 15 and 16, engaged in large-scale dumping of red earth and construction waste to reclaim mangrove land and construct access roads in violation of the CRZ Notification 2019 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
The petitioner submitted that despite multiple complaints to the authorities, including the Assistant Conservator of Forests and the District Collector, no timely action was taken. Following the Court’s interim order dated 29 May 2023, a three-member committee comprising officials from the Revenue Department, Social Forestry, and the Wetland Authority was constituted to inspect the site. The committee’s report confirmed violations of CRZ laws, finding that roads were constructed within the protected mangrove area, resulting in the destruction of approximately 11.42 cents of mangroves and affecting 16.56 cents of buffer zone. The report further noted that the construction occurred in CRZ-IA and CRZ-III zones without any authorisation. The Court held that such actions constituted clear violations of the CRZ Notification 2019 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
The Bench recorded that “the manner in which the destruction of the mangrove area was carried out is a matter of serious concern.” It noted that the petitioner had, as early as January 2023, provided detailed representations with GPS coordinates of the affected site and accompanying maps, but the authorities failed to act. The Court remarked that “action was not taken in time despite bringing to the attention of the authorities precise information regarding the illegalities.”
Referring to the inspection report, the Court observed that the construction and dumping activities were carried out within CRZ-IA, an ecologically sensitive area with the highest level of protection. It stated: “CRZ-I A classification of an area confers a high degree of protection among the Coastal Regulation Zones.” The report confirmed that the site was located along the Pullankode Puzha, a tidal-influenced water body that serves as a breeding ground for aquatic species such as otters, crabs, shrimps, and mollusks. The dumping of red earth and construction debris, the Court noted, would “cause serious adverse consequences for the environment.”
The Court further recorded that Respondent Nos. 15 and 16, identified as real estate dealers, had constructed the road and filled mangrove areas “without submitting any application either to the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority or to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.” The Bench held that such activities violated the CRZ Notification 2019, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. It observed: “The Respondent Authorities will have to take strict action as per law regarding the same.”
Criticising official inaction, the Court stated that “the authorities are under a statutory mandate to ensure that unauthorized constructions are prevented.” It added that “periodical site inspections should be carried out and instances such as the large-scale destruction of mangroves have to be noticed by the officers during their field visits to restrain them immediately.”
On restoration efforts, the Court found the approach of the Social Forestry Department unsatisfactory, noting that even after the inspection report was submitted, “hardly any action has been taken.” It described the affidavit filed by the Deputy Conservator of Forests as “sketchy” and directed the Conservator of Forests, Social Forestry, Northern Region, Kozhikode, to submit a timeline for compliance. While acknowledging delays in procuring mangrove seeds, the Court remarked that “the situation has been dealt with in a routine and pedantic manner.”
The Court ordered that Respondents 1 to 14, including State and local authorities, “will co-ordinate to take appropriate steps for removal of all traces of the waste from the property covered by Exhibit-P1 of Kunhimangalam Grama Panchayat, to restore the area to its original position.” It further mandated that “re-plantation of mangroves as per law and as suggested by the Inspection Committee, will be done within a period of three months from today.”
The Court directed that “other Governmental agencies will act in aid of the Conservator of Forests to ensure time-bound compliance of the directions.”
It instructed the State Government to “formulate a plan of action with special emphasis on regular monitoring of the mangroves in the Kunhimangalam area” and to assign specific officers the responsibility of preventing future violations. The Court held that until such a plan was implemented, the existing three-member team of officials — the Tahsildar, Range Forest Officer, and Environmental Engineer — “will make periodical visits to the site under the directions of the District Collector, Kannur, and submit field visit reports regarding the violation of Coastal Regulation Zone Notification in respect of the mangrove forests.”
The Collector was also directed to develop a citizen-reporting mechanism through “a phone number, email, or social media, erecting a notice board, etc.” to enable the public to report violations. The Court concluded that the writ petition was disposed of with the above directions, warning that authorities must ensure vigilance to prevent recurrence.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Sri. Mahesh V. Ramakrishnan, Sri. Praveen K.S.
For the Respondents: Sri. Prakash M.P., Sri. M. Sasindran, Sri. Mathew Kuriakose, Sri. G. Gireesh, Sri. Moni George, Sri. J. Krishnakumar (Adoor), and Sri. Nagaraj Narayanan (Special Government Pleader)
Case Title: P.P. Rajan v. State of Kerala & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:75670
Case Number: WP (C) No. 13495 of 2023
Bench: Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar, Justice Basant Balaji
