The Supreme Court on Tuesday opined that homebuyers in the Maradu municipality who purchased flats, which were later demolished for violation of environmental norms, are equally responsible for the same as builders and authorities. .A bench of Justices BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna stated that those who had bought the flats were not illiterate persons and should have put more thought into where they were spending their hard-earned money."What is the responsibility of the homebuyers? Can they buy anywhere just because builder is building? We have to balance everyone's interest, everyone must face the music. These were not rural or illiterate people," Justice Nagarathna remarked. .The remarks were made after submissions by homebuyers about the difficulties faced by them due to court order leading to the demolition of their flats. .The Supreme Court was hearing applications by those who had purchased the flats at Kerala's Maradu municipality, which were in May 2019 ordered to be removed for being built on the notified Coastal Regulatory Zone (CRZ) of the area.A review petition was later filed against this judgment by a builder of one of the apartment buildings, arguing that the judgment was based on the incorrect understanding that the constructions are made in areas notified as CRZ III, when in fact they were constructed in compliance with the CRZ norms.However, in September 2019, the top court ordered the Kerala government to pay ₹25 lakh as interim compensation to the affected flat owners, which were to be recovered from the builders and the remainder to be awarded to the flat owners to be evaluated by the Justice TB Radhakrishnan committee. The Court later ordered the builders to deposit ₹20 crores with the committee.The report of the committee tabled before the Supreme Court said that officials of the panchayat had issued the building permits, and later failed to issued any stop memo to the builders.The officials were also aware of the CRZ classification and that the area of the now demolished buildings fell in a no development zine as per the relevant notification, the committee found.Consequently, the committee said the liability would be not just on the builder alone, but also on the State government and the concerned municipality and panchayat..During the hearing of the matter on Tuesday, Senior Advocate V Giri, appearing for the homebuyers, submitted that new construction can be done in the area as per CRZ 2019 norms. He added that the litigation so far has been one-sided. Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora appearing for another batch of petitioners said that the homebuyers had taken loans to pay for the purchase, and are still repaying the same. The case will be heard again in the second week of November.