RAMESH J THARKAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition had been preferred on 01/07/2003. Petitioners, who are residents of Konthuruthy, are pursuing profession as Architects. They are occupying independent residential buildings in a serene and picturesque surrounding, facing backwaters, as the claim goes. The writ petition is filed espousing public interest, as according to them, indiscriminate and illegal reclamation and encroachment of Kayal lands in the adjoining Maradu Panchayat and other vantage points, if not prevented, may ultimately sound the death knell to tourism and is likely to ecological imbalance irretraceable. They complain that the reclamation, mostly unauthorised, is there not only at Maradu, but almost in every other places surrounding the city, as persons have a fancy for encroachment of Kayal lands for a variety of reasons. It is their submission that at least after the notifications had been issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests on 19/02/1991, coastal areas could not have been reclaimed except for permitted activities, and it is submitted that the named authorities have a duty for enforcement of the Regulations. But strangely they themselves are engaged in violating the norms, at times unknowingly, and on certain occasions, on extraneous considerations. Accordingly, it is prayed that necessary directions to prohibit the illegal reclamation of land and backwaters in the Cochin city and suburbs are to be directed to be issued.

(2.) Mr. Bechu Kurian Thomas, on behalf of the petitioners, had invited our attention to the circumstance in which the writ petition came to be filed. On the opposite bank of the backwaters, the petitioners could see during June, 2003 very hectic activities, and truck loads of sand and gravel were being dumped night and day. They had thereupon alerted the district administration about the reclamation process, as well as police authorities, the Corporation of Cochin as also the Grama Panchayat. Averments in the writ petition show that they were under the impression that these activities were at the instance of persons, who might be land grabbers.

(3.) The picture given in the writ petition does indicate that they were unaware of the identity of persons, who were engaged in such busy work and perhaps this was the reason for the petitioners to aver in paragraph 6 of the writ petition that: