ANTONY JAYAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks in this writ petition a declaration in public interest that the hospital and allied structures constructed by respondents 10 to 12 pursuant to Ext. R-2 (a) lay out approval granted by the Chief Town Planner are liable to be demolished.

(2.) Shorn of details, the facts relevant for the decision of the writ petition are the following: The sanctioned Town Planning Scheme of Kochi City authorises the Chief Town Planner to permit land use, notwithstanding the land use permitted as per the zoning regulations, for large scale development proposals involving an investment in excess of 50 Crores and providing employment to more than 500 employees, subject to the recommendation of the committee constituted by the Government for that purpose. A proposal was made by the tenth respondent before the committee constituted by the Government for the said purpose for the construction of a hospital and allied structures in an area of 36.96 acres in Cheranelloor Village with an estimated investment of 1350 crores. Going by the proposal, the project on its completion would generate employment opportunities for about 4500 persons. On 23-11-2010, on an evaluation of the project proposals and other details, the committee decided to recommend the proposal subject to certain conditions. Ext. P-1 is the recommendation of the committee. Ext. P-1 indicates that the land proposed to be developed is a paddy field as per the revenue records and the tenth respondent represented before the committee that the same was a land used by the Cochin Corporation for dumping solid waste and thus, the land is full of waste materials mixed with sand and gravel, causing considerable pollution and environmental degradation in the area. Ext. P-1 also indicates that in the matter of accepting the proposals, the committee directed the seventh respondent Grama Panchayat to satisfy as to the correctness of the aforesaid representation made by the tenth respondent. Later, on 11-3-2011, based on Ext. P-1 recommendation, the second respondent, the Chief Town Planner granted the permission sought for by the tenth respondent and approved the lay out plan of the project. Ext. R-2 (a) is the proceedings issued by the second respondent in that connection. In the meanwhile, on 9-12-2010, in the light of Ext. P-1 recommendation, the seventh respondent Grama Panchayat appointed a subcommittee to submit their recommendations as to the project, after conducting a local inspection of the property and pursuant to the said decision, the subcommittee appointed by the Panchayat inspected the site of the project on 14-12-2010 and submitted a detailed report, recommending the Panchayat to extend all necessary help for the implementation of the project. The recommendations made by the subcommittee were examined and accepted by the seventh respondent Panchayat on 17-12-2010. Ext. R-10(i) (produced in I.A. No. 11874 of 2014) is the decision of the seventh respondent Panchayat on 17-12-2010. Ext. R-10(i) indicates that the subcommittee reported to the Panchayat that the land proposed to be developed is a land where the Corporation was dumping solid waste about 11 years back and that there was no agricultural activity on the said land thereafter. It seems that based on the recommendations of the subcommittee, the Panchayat issued Ext. P-4 development permit and Ext. P-5 building permit to respondents 10 to 12 for constructing a hospital building and allied structures, having a plinth area of 87627.27 square meters. It is seen that later on 9-3-2012, the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority has also informed the seventh respondent Panchayat that the proposed constructions of respondents 10 to 12 are outside the Coastal Regulation Zone and therefore, there is no impediment in constructing the proposed structures.

(3.) The writ petition is seen filed about two and half years after the Chief Town Planner accorded approval for the lay out plan of the project. By the time, the construction of the buildings was almost complete. The petitioner challenged in the writ petition, Ext. P-1 recommendation made by the committee constituted by the Government and Exts. P-4 and P-5 permits granted by the Panchayat pursuant to the lay out approval granted by the second respondent. He also sought directions to the respondents concerned to stop further constructions pursuant to the impugned permits. It is alleged in the writ petition that the petitioner is residing within the limits of the seventh respondent Panchayat and is aggrieved by the damage caused to Kuttysahib Road on account of the continuous heavy traffic caused by respondents 10 to 12 for the development activities. It is also alleged in the writ petition that the petitioner is aggrieved by the reclamation of Paddy land and constructions carried out therein, violating Coastal Zone Regulations. The averments made in this connection in paragraphs 1 and 10 of the writ petition read thus: