Aquaculture - shrimp ponds are converted by the CRZ Notification and are prohibited activities. Direction to demolish ponds within prescribed time.
Shrimp culture industry/the shrimp culture industries are covered by the prohibition contained in para2 (1) of the CRZ notification. No shrimp culture pond can be constructed or set up within the coastal regulation Zone as defined in the CRZ notification. This shall be applicable to all seas, bays, estuaries, creeks, rivers and backwaters. This direction shall not apply to traditional and improved traditional types of technologies as defined in Alagarswami report which are practiced in the coastal low lying areas .The farmers who are operating traditional and improved traditional systems of aquaculture may adopt improved technology for increased production, productivity and return with prior approval of the "authority" constituted. The agricultural lands, salt pan lands, mangroves, wet lands, forest lands, land for village common purpose and the land meant for public purposes shall not be used/converted for construction of shrimp culture ponds.
An industry dependent on the seawater cannot by itself is an industry "directly related to water front" or "directly needing foreshore facilities". For shrimp industry what is required is brackish water which can be drawn from nay source including sea and carried to any distance by pipes. The purpose of CRZ notification is to protect the ecological fragile coastal areas and to safe guard the aesthetic qualities and uses of the seacoast. The setting up of modern shrimp acquaculture farms on the sea coast and construction of ponds and other infrastructure thereon is per se hazardous and is bound to degrade the marine ecology, coastal environment and aesthetic uses of the sea coast. The Supreme Court therefore held that the shrimp culture industry is neither "directly related to water front" nor "directly needing foreshore facilities". The setting up of shrimp culture farms within the prohibited areas under the CRZ notification cannot be permitted. [S.Jagannath vs Union of India . AIR 1997 SC 811 = 1997(1)JT SC 160=(1997)2 SCC 87= 1997(1) KLT SN.32.Page 24 = 1977 AIRSW 635. Kuldip Singh and S.Sagir Ahmad(JJ).] [Re-affirmed in Gopi Aqua Farms and others vs Union of India . AIR 1977 SC 3519]
Wetland -Importance of and part played in proper maintenance of environmental equilibrium and necessity to preserve environment-Environment and development - Court should strike a balance.
Wetland being a bounty of nature does have a significant role to play in the proper development of the society-be it from environmental perspective or from economic perspective. Wetland is precious, wetland ensures to the benefit of the society at large and wetland assists mankind to live in a cleaner and purer environment-which one cannot afford to lose neither the Court of can lend assistance to contra-belief or contra action of a State Agency. Wetland acts as a benefactor to the society and there cannot be any manner of doubt in regard thereto and as such encroachment thereto would be detrimental to the society, which is the Law Courts, cannot permit. Therefore, injunction granted against proposed reclamation of wetland situated near Calcutta. It is now a well-settled principle of law that while dealing with the matter, the social problems shall have to be dealt with in the way and in the manner it calls for, since benefit to the society ought to be the prime consideration of the Law Courts and ecological imbalance being a social problem ought to be decided by a court of law so that the society may thrive and prosper without any affection.[People United for Better Living in Calcutta-Public and another vs. State of West Bengal and others. AIR 1993 Calcutta 215. Umesh Chandra Benerjee.J.]