Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 162 (KER)

C. G. Thampi, S/o. C. Gopaln v. Union of India

2011-02-07

J.CHELAMESWAR, P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

body2011
JUDGMENT : P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following prayers: "i. to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 7 to ensure that the land having an extent of 23.95 acres in R.S. No. 27/1, 28/1, 29/2, 29/4, 29/5, 29/6, 29/7, 29/8, 30/1, 30/2, 32/1, 32/6, 32/7, 32/9, 33/6, 33/10 and 74/1 in Edakochy in Ernakulam district is not converted into a Cricket Stadium and not reclaimed in any manner and that the said land is conserved as a paddy lands and wetlands; ii. to declare that the land in R.S. No.27/1, 28/1, 29/2, 29/4, 29/5, 29/6, 29/7, 29/8, 30/1, 30/2, 32/1, 32/6, 32/7, 32/9, 33/6, 33/10 and 74/1 in Edakochy in Ernakulam district is not liable to be converted into a Cricket Stadium and is to be preserved, without being reclaimed. iii. to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 7 to ensure preservation of the above land with all the characteristics thereof and without in any way converting the wet land and paddy lands in the said area; iv. to issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondents 1 to 7 to take appropriate actions against respondent No.8 and the persons in charge of respondent No.8 society including Respondents 9 and 10 for attempting to convert the paddy land and referred in Ext.P3 wetlands into a Cricket Stadium by violating the law; v. to issue such other orders, directions or writs as may be prayed for and that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit on the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. Going by the materials on record, the prayer essentially is that the property concerned is not liable to be converted into a Cricket Stadium and is not liable to be reclaimed in any manner, it being a wet land by virtue of the relevant provisions of law (the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008). There is also a case for the petitioners that it comes under the prohibited zone, by virtue of the parameters prescribed by the Coastal Zone Management Authority. 3. Mr. Kaleeswaram Raj, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the 4th respondent has already filed a counter affidavit along with the relevant records, pointing out that the property comes under the CRZ-1 zone and as such, no construction activity is permissible under any circumstances. 4. 3. Mr. Kaleeswaram Raj, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the 4th respondent has already filed a counter affidavit along with the relevant records, pointing out that the property comes under the CRZ-1 zone and as such, no construction activity is permissible under any circumstances. 4. Mr. G. Sreekumar, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 8, 9 and 10 reiterated the submission already made before this Court that the said respondents do not intend to effect any construction at all, contrary to the relevant provisions of law, unless and until statutory clearance is obtained. The learned Counsel further submits that the 4th respondent has already issued a notice to the said respondents with regard to the proposal to construct Cricket Stadium and that the above respondents are pursuing further steps by giving reply. 5. In the above circumstances, this Court does not find it necessary to go into the merits of the case. The Writ Petition is disposed of, permitting the respondents 8, 9 and 10 to pursue the matter by filing appropriate reply before the 4th respondent, however, making it clear that further steps with regard to construction of stadium shall be pursued only subject to the statutory clearance, to be given by the 4th respondent/competent authority. I.A. No.16662 OF 2010: In view of disposal of the Writ Petition as above, this impleading petition is dismissed.