RAGHUL C.R. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case set up in the W.P.(C.) is as follows : That petitioners herein are residents of Nedumangad Municipality. A draft master plan 2038 was prepared by the Municipality and was approved by the Council. On coming to know about the draft master plan petitioners filed a detailed objection to the said proposal. The inclusion of properties without proper enquiry and following the mandate of Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016 is illegal and erroneous. In fact majority of the properties are paddy land and are included in the data bank under the Conservation for Paddy and Wetland Act, 2008. A major portion of the above properties wherein the proposal for sports complex is mooted consists of streams, water resources and paddy fields. Exts.P3 to P5 objections were filed by petitioners highlighting the illegality in inclusion of properties which are wet lands and paddy lands, the same have not been considered at all. The stand adopted is clearly illegal and in contravention of the mandatory provisions of the Country and Town Planning Act, 2016. Ext.P2 draft master to the extent objected to is against law and violative of Article 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India. The same is in contravention of the scheme and mandatory provisions of the Conservation for Paddy and Wet Land Act, 2008. The inclusion of paddy lands and wetlands in the area for construction of sports complex is in utter violation of the mandatory provisions and scheme of the Conservation for Paddy and Wet Land Act, 2008. No exemption also cannot be claimed or invoked to set up a sports complex by thwarting the legal provisions. It is in the light of these averments and contentions that the petitioners have filed the instant W.P.(C.) with the following prayers :

(2.) Heard Sri.V.Premchand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. K.J.Manuraj, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and 6. In the nature of the orders proposed to be passed in this petition, notice to respondents 4 and 5 (Nedumangad Municipality) will stand dispensed with.

(3.) The petitioners' counsel has made submissions in tune with the pleadings in the W.P.(C.). Sri.K.J.Manuraj, learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents would submit that he has got telephonic instruction from the 1st respondent-Government that so far they have not received requisite proposal from the 4 th respondent-Nedumangad Municipality and that the said Municipality has asked the Government that they be given further time of two months in view of the issues arising out of the COVID-19 pandemic and that in these circumstances, the consideration of the objections of the petitioners, if submitted is to be effected by the respondent-Nedumangad Municipality.