AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We have heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant as well as Mr.K.N.C. Kaushik, learned counsel appearing for respondent who has taken notice on behalf of the respondent.
The issue involved in this case is covered by a detailed judgement of this Tribunal passed on 10th March, 2015 in Appeal No.26 of 2014 wherein it was clearly held that respondent has not given the explanation as to why it has taken different stand by following the CRZ Notification, 1991 instead of CRZ Notification 2011. Ultimately, it was decided that the appellant was entitled for CRZ clearance.
The said order in Appeal No.26 of 2014 was reiterated in Appeal No.71 of 2015 in our order dated 12.02.2016 setting aside the impugned order challenged therein. Following the same, this Appeal also stands allowed and the impugned order of the respondent dated 06.05.2017 referring to the 85th meeting of the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority (KCZMA) dated 29.04.2017 deciding to grant CRZ clearance for the Appellant in Ts.No. 150 Part1-4/155 of Puthiyangadi Village, Kozhikode District relating to Mr.E.T.Firoz of Malaparambu, Kozhikode limiting the plinth area to FAR at 1.5 as on 19.02.1991, stands set aside and the respondent is directed to reconsider the application as per the proposal made by the Appellant claiming FAR 3.98, Plot Size 2.6612 ha., Sy.T.S.No.150 Part 1-4/155 of Puthiyangadi Village, Kozhikodu District and pass appropriate orders.
The Appeal stands allowed in the above terms. There shall be no order as to cost.