{"id":216723,"date":"2006-07-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-07-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/norbert-lawrence-vs-kerala-coastal-zone-management-on-28-july-2006"},"modified":"2015-10-03T07:58:14","modified_gmt":"2015-10-03T02:28:14","slug":"norbert-lawrence-vs-kerala-coastal-zone-management-on-28-july-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/norbert-lawrence-vs-kerala-coastal-zone-management-on-28-july-2006","title":{"rendered":"Norbert Lawrence vs Kerala Coastal Zone Management … on 28 July, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Norbert Lawrence vs Kerala Coastal Zone Management … on 28 July, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C) No. 6506 of 2006(Y)\n\n\n1. NORBERT LAWRENCE,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. KERALA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE CENTRE FOR EARTH SCIENCE STUDIES,\n\n3. KOTTUKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY)\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN\n\n Dated :28\/07\/2006\n\n O R D E R\n                                 S.SIRI JAGAN, J\n\n\n                            ----------------------------\n\n                          W.P.(C) NO.6506  Of 2006\n\n                            ----------------------------\n\n\n                      Dated this 28th day of July, 2006\n\n\n\n\n                                  J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
       The petitioner is a resort owner.   He has approached this court<\/p>\n
seeking the following releifs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     1) issue   a   writ   of   prohibition   or   other   appropriate   writ,   order   or<\/p>\n
        direction directing respondents 1 and 3, not to disturb any huts<\/p>\n
        constructed   by   the   petitioner   in   the   75   cents   of   properties   in<\/p>\n
        which   Aazhimala   Beach   resorts   is   constructed,   with   valid<\/p>\n
        permission  ands permits under No.B-3-15\/47\/2002-2003 to B-<\/p>\n
        3-15\/50\/2002-2003                and         B-1\/565\/531-03-04            to         B-<\/p>\n
        1\/565\/534\/03-04   of the 3rd  respondent, pending final decision<\/p>\n
        of   the   Union   of   India,   Ministry   of   Enviornment   and   Forest   on<\/p>\n
        Ext.P1 and P6 representations.\n<\/p>\n
     2) Issue   a   writ   of   mandamus   directing   the   2nd  respondent   to<\/p>\n
        consider and comply with the request in Ext.P5 and submit the<\/p>\n
        report before the 2nd respondent with in a reasonable time.<\/p>\n
    3) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order or<\/p>\n
       direction   directing   the   1st  respondent   to   forward   Ext.P1<\/p>\n
       application to Union of India as directed in Ext.P3, if the same is<\/p>\n
       not forwarded to the Union of India.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       2.   The   main   thrust   of   his   case   is   that   he   has   constructed   the<\/p>\n
buildings   for   the   resort,     after   obtaining   proper   permits   and   license<\/p>\n
and therefore, he should not be directed to demolish the same.       In<\/p>\n
the   said   circumstances,   he   seeks   a   direction,   directing   the   1st<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NO.6506  Of 2006                  2<\/span><\/p>\n
respondent-   Kerala   Coastal   Zone   Management   Authority   to   forward<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 application submitted by the petitioner as directed in Ext.P3 to<\/p>\n
the Union of India and till Union of India takes a final decision to allow<\/p>\n
things to remain as on today.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         3.   The   whole   issue   relates   to   compliance   with   the   Zoning<\/p>\n
Regulations under the Environment Protection Act.  The particular area<\/p>\n
where   the   petitioner’s   resort   is   situated,   comes   within   the   CRZ   II<\/p>\n
category.  As per the Zoning Regulations in this area up to 200 meters<\/p>\n
from the  High Tide   Line   no development activities can  be  permitted.<\/p>\n
Beyond 200 meters up to 500 meters construction is permissible with<\/p>\n
prior   permission   from   the   appropriate   authority.     The   petitioner<\/p>\n
submits that the petitioner started the construction in 2002 at a time<\/p>\n
when the 200 meters High Tide Line was farther away and therefore<\/p>\n
the   petitioner’s   construction   was   beyond   200   meters.     In   the   above<\/p>\n
circumstances,   the   petitioner’s   contention   is   that   if   the   petitioner’s<\/p>\n
constructions   does   not   affect   any   ecological   balance   the   petitioner<\/p>\n
should be allowed to retain the constructions.<\/p>\n
       4.    In this regard there was a long standing litigation between<\/p>\n
the   4th  respondent   and   the   petitioner.     The   4th  respondent   has   now<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NO.6506  Of 2006                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
come   up   with   a   counter   affidavit   refuting   all   the   contentions   of   the<\/p>\n
petitioner.   According to the 4th  respondent the petitioner is bound by<\/p>\n
Ext.P3   judgment  in which the  petitioner   was  also  a  party.  In  fact,  in<\/p>\n
view   of   the   said   decision   the   petitioner   cannot   raise   the   contentions<\/p>\n
which   he   has   raised   in   this   writ   petition,   according   to   the   4th<\/p>\n
respondent.  The 4th respondent would contend that in compliance with<\/p>\n
Ext.P3 judgment, the 1st respondent in this writ petition had inspected<\/p>\n
the area in the presence of all concerned, including the representative<\/p>\n
of   the   Panchayat,the   petitioner   and   the   4th  respondent   and   issue<\/p>\n
Ext.R4(p) and R4(q) directions to the Secretary of the Kottukal Grama<\/p>\n
Panchayat, whereby the 1st respondent has categorically found that the<\/p>\n
construction made by the petitioner  comes squarely within the 200ms<\/p>\n
from  the   High  Tide   Line   and  consequent   to  which   the   1st  respondent<\/p>\n
directed the Panchayat to take appropriate action to comply with the<\/p>\n
judgment by demolishing the construction in question.<\/p>\n
       5.   The   counsel   for   the   petitioner   submits   that,   despite   Ext.P3<\/p>\n
judgment he is entitled to appropriate releifs in this matter in view of<\/p>\n
the judgment of the Supreme Court in Goa vs Diksha Holdings Pvt.Ltd<\/p>\n
and   others<\/a>   reported   in   2001(2).S.C.C.1997   wherein   in   paragraph   10<\/p>\n
Supreme   Court   has   held   that   in   cases,   wherein,   no   ecological<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NO.6506  Of 2006                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
imbalance is caused on account of construction, such construction can<\/p>\n
be permitted.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      6. I have considered the rival contentions in detail, I note that in<\/p>\n
Ext.P3 judgment the very same question was directly in issue.  In that<\/p>\n
judgment  in  paragraph  5  the learned  judge  in this  court  has  held as<\/p>\n
follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             ” I have heard the learned counsel on both sides.  In<\/p>\n
      view   of   the   Coastal   Regulation   Zone   notification,   the<\/p>\n
      constructions   undertaken   within   200   meters   of   the   High<\/p>\n
      Tide line have to be removed.  The grant of license by the<\/p>\n
      panchayath was made on the strength of the undertaking<\/p>\n
      given by the 2nd  respondent that the area does not come<\/p>\n
      under the CRZ notification, and that in case it is found to<\/p>\n
      be coming under the said notification, it will remove all the<\/p>\n
      constructions without demur.  In view of the said  position,<\/p>\n
      the   1st  respondent     is   directed   to   inspect   the   property   of<\/p>\n
      the 2nd  respondent and demarcate the area coming within<\/p>\n
      200   meters   of   the   High   Tide   Line   with   notice   to   the<\/p>\n
      petitioner,   the   Panchayat   and   the   2nd  respondent.       This<\/p>\n
      the 1st respondent shall do within one month from the date<\/p>\n
      of   receipt   of   a   copy   of   this   judgment.     If   the   2nd<\/p>\n
      respondent   does   not   demolish   the   buldings   within   the<\/p>\n
      prohibited   distance   within   one   month   from   the   date   of<\/p>\n
      receipt of a copy of this judgment.   If the 2nd  respondent<\/p>\n
      does   not   demolish   the   buildings   within   the   prohibited<\/p>\n
      distance within one month, the 3rd  respondent shall cause<\/p>\n
      to demolish the same within one month thereafter, at the<\/p>\n
      cost of 2nd  respondent .   If the 2nd  respondent has not ,so<\/p>\n
      far, made any application for consent, for  construction in<\/p>\n
      the area beyond 200 meters of the High Tide Line, it may<\/p>\n
      make   it   within   one   month   from   today   through   proper<\/p>\n
      channel.  If the application is already received and pending<\/p>\n
      or   any   application   is   received   within   one   month,   the   1st<\/p>\n
      respondent   shall   process   the   same   and   forward   it   to   the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NO.6506  Of 2006                    5<\/span><\/p>\n
      Central   Government   for   appropriate   decision.     If   the<\/p>\n
      application   is   already   received   or   it   is   filed   within   one<\/p>\n
      month   from   today,   the   construction   standing   in   the   area<\/p>\n
      beyond   200   meters   of   the   High   Tide   Line,   will   not   be<\/p>\n
      disturbed,   until   the   Union   of   India   takes   a   decision   as<\/p>\n
      directed   above.     The   retention   of   those   structures,<\/p>\n
      thereafter,   will   depend   upon   the   orders   of   the   Union   of<\/p>\n
      India.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     7.     Thus   judgment     has   become   final.     Pursuant   to   this<\/p>\n
judgment the 1st  respondent has taken appropriate action which<\/p>\n
culminated   in   Ext.R4(p)   and   Ext.R4(q).                  It   would   be<\/p>\n
advantageous to extract the same fully here.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       Ext.R4(p) reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             “With reference to the judgment in O.P.No.19547 of<\/p>\n
     2004   of   Hon’ble   High   Court,   the   demarcation   from   High<\/p>\n
     Tide   Line   of   the   sea   has   been   done   in   the   field   by   the<\/p>\n
     Kerala   Coastal   Zone   Management   Authority   in   the<\/p>\n
     afternoon   of   17.01.2006.     The   demarcation   was   carried<\/p>\n
     out in the presence of<\/p>\n
             1)Smt.Beena Sarasan(Petitioner)<\/p>\n
             2)Shri.Nobert Lawrence, Azhimala Beach Resorts<\/p>\n
               (Second respondent)<\/p>\n
             3)Smt.Joylet.J.S.Secretary-in-charge, Kottukal<\/p>\n
               Gramapanchayat and<\/p>\n
             4)Sri.Viswambharan,LDC,Kottukal<\/p>\n
            Gramapanchayath<\/p>\n
             As   per   judgment,   the   High   Court   has   directed   the<\/p>\n
     second   respondent   to   demolish   the   building   in   the<\/p>\n
     prohibited   area   within   one   month,   failing   which   the<\/p>\n
     Kottukal Grama panchayat (third respondent shall cause to<\/p>\n
     demolish the construction in the prohibited area within one<\/p>\n
     month   thereafter.     The   Gramapacnhayat   may   take<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NO.6506  Of 2006                    6<\/span><\/p>\n
      appropriate   action   for   complying   the   judgment   and   the<\/p>\n
      report may be submitted to the undersigned immediately.”<\/p>\n
       Ext.R4(q) reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               “With   reference   to   the   above   letter,   it  is   to<\/p>\n
       inform you that the demarcation of the 200m High<\/p>\n
       Tide Line was marked in the field in the presence of<\/p>\n
       Smt.Joylet,   Junior   Superintendent   –   Secretary   in<\/p>\n
       charge   of   Kottukal   Gramapanchayat   and<\/p>\n
       Sri.Vishwambaran,  LDC,  Kottukal   Gramapanchayat<\/p>\n
       along with the petitioner and second respondent.<\/p>\n
                The   letter   cited   2nd  in  the   above   reference<\/p>\n
       was   communicated   to   the   Secretary,   Kottukal<\/p>\n
       Gramapanchayat,   and   it   clearly   stated   the   200   m<\/p>\n
       line from the high Tide Line.  It is seem to be found<\/p>\n
       that   the   buildings   under   question   fell   within   the<\/p>\n
       200m   CRZ  and hence,  are  in violation  of  the   Rule<\/p>\n
       provisions.     Hence   you   may   comply   with   the<\/p>\n
       Hon’ble High Court order as per existing Rules.”<\/p>\n
       8. The 1st  respondent is the appropriate authority to decide the<\/p>\n
question   as   to   whether   the   construction   are   in   compliance   with   the<\/p>\n
Zoning   Regulations.     They   have   categorically   found   that   the<\/p>\n
construction made by the petitioner comes squarely within 200 meters<\/p>\n
area from the High Tide Line, where development activities are totally<\/p>\n
prohibited.   In so far as Ext.P3 judgment is binding on the petitioner<\/p>\n
and Ext.R4(p) and Ext.R4(q) are in compliance with Ext.P3 judgment,<\/p>\n
the petitioner cannot now take a stand against Ext.R4(p) and Ext.R4<\/p>\n
(q),   which   categorically   holds   that   the   petitioner’s   constructions   are<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NO.6506  Of 2006                   7<\/span><\/p>\n
within   the   prohibited   area   of   within   200   meters   from   the   High   Tide<\/p>\n
Line.   Therefore in accordance with the directions in Ext.P3 judgment,<\/p>\n
the construction are liable to be demolished.<\/p>\n
       9. Regarding the contentions of the petitioner with reference to<\/p>\n
the above said judgment of the Supreme Court, I am not satisfied that<\/p>\n
the facts and circumstances  of the case  applies to facts of this case.<\/p>\n
There   is    no  finding by  any  competent  authority  that  the  petitioner’s<\/p>\n
construction   will   not   cause   any   ecological   imbalance   and   there   is   no<\/p>\n
material produced by the petitioner to prove otherwise. In any way, as<\/p>\n
far as Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority is an expert body to<\/p>\n
decide   all   these   questions   as   provided   in   the   regulations   applicable,<\/p>\n
this court, which is not in anyway equipped to decide those questions<\/p>\n
especially   since   no   material   are   also   placed   before   this   court,cannot<\/p>\n
countenance the contentions of the petitioner in that regard.<\/p>\n
       10. Counsel for the petitioners submits that Ext.R4(p) and R4(q)<\/p>\n
have   been   issued   subsequent   to   the   filing   of   writ   petition   and   the<\/p>\n
petitioner had in fact highlighted his grievances in Ext.P6 and Exhibit<\/p>\n
R4(p)   and   Ext.R4(q)   have   been   passed   without   referring   to   Ext.P6<\/p>\n
representation.     I   am   not   able   to   countenance   this   contention   also<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NO.6506  Of 2006                   8<\/span><\/p>\n
because the inspection which resulted in Ext.R4(p) and Ext.R4(q) have<\/p>\n
been   conducted   pursuant   to   the   orders   of   this   court   which   contains<\/p>\n
specific   directions   in   this   regard   which   the   1st  respondent   cannot<\/p>\n
violate.     In   so   far   as,   the   inspection   have   been   conducted   in   the<\/p>\n
presence of the petitioner also, the petitioner cannot now contend that<\/p>\n
such representation was not  taken into consideration. As far as the 1st<\/p>\n
respondent is concerned,he  is bound by Ext.P3 judgment and has to<\/p>\n
follow the same in letter and spirit.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      There is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is<\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                         S.SIRI  JAGAN, JUDGE<\/p>\n
SJ<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NO.6506  Of 2006      9<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Norbert Lawrence vs Kerala Coastal Zone Management … on 28 July, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C) No. 6506 of 2006(Y) 1. NORBERT LAWRENCE, … Petitioner Vs 1. KERALA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY … Respondent 2. THE CENTRE FOR EARTH SCIENCE STUDIES, 3. KOTTUKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, For Petitioner […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-216723","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nNorbert Lawrence vs Kerala Coastal Zone Management ... on 28 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/norbert-lawrence-vs-kerala-coastal-zone-management-on-28-july-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Norbert Lawrence vs Kerala Coastal Zone Management ... on 28 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/norbert-lawrence-vs-kerala-coastal-zone-management-on-28-july-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-03T02:28:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/norbert-lawrence-vs-kerala-coastal-zone-management-on-28-july-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/norbert-lawrence-vs-kerala-coastal-zone-management-on-28-july-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Norbert Lawrence vs Kerala Coastal Zone Management … on 28 July, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-03T02:28:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/norbert-lawrence-vs-kerala-coastal-zone-management-on-28-july-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1806,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/norbert-lawrence-vs-kerala-coastal-zone-management-on-28-july-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/norbert-lawrence-vs-kerala-coastal-zone-management-on-28-july-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/norbert-lawrence-vs-kerala-coastal-zone-management-on-28-july-2006\",\"name\":\"Norbert Lawrence vs Kerala Coastal Zone Management ... on 28 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-03T02:28:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/norbert-lawrence-vs-kerala-coastal-zone-management-on-28-july-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/norbert-lawrence-vs-kerala-coastal-zone-management-on-28-july-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/norbert-lawrence-vs-kerala-coastal-zone-management-on-28-july-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Norbert Lawrence vs Kerala Coastal Zone Management … on 28 July, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Norbert Lawrence vs Kerala Coastal Zone Management ... on 28 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/norbert-lawrence-vs-kerala-coastal-zone-management-on-28-july-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Norbert Lawrence vs Kerala Coastal Zone Management ... on 28 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/norbert-lawrence-vs-kerala-coastal-zone-management-on-28-july-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-03T02:28:14+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/norbert-lawrence-vs-kerala-coastal-zone-management-on-28-july-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/norbert-lawrence-vs-kerala-coastal-zone-management-on-28-july-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Norbert Lawrence vs Kerala Coastal Zone Management … on 28 July, 2006","datePublished":"2006-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-03T02:28:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/norbert-lawrence-vs-kerala-coastal-zone-management-on-28-july-2006"},"wordCount":1806,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/norbert-lawrence-vs-kerala-coastal-zone-management-on-28-july-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/norbert-lawrence-vs-kerala-coastal-zone-management-on-28-july-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/norbert-lawrence-vs-kerala-coastal-zone-management-on-28-july-2006","name":"Norbert Lawrence vs Kerala Coastal Zone Management ... on 28 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-03T02:28:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/norbert-lawrence-vs-kerala-coastal-zone-management-on-28-july-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/norbert-lawrence-vs-kerala-coastal-zone-management-on-28-july-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/norbert-lawrence-vs-kerala-coastal-zone-management-on-28-july-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Norbert Lawrence vs Kerala Coastal Zone Management … on 28 July, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/216723","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=216723"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/216723\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=216723"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=216723"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=216723"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}