SURAJ Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are persons residing within the limits of the seventh respondent Panchayat. The grievance voiced by the petitioners in the writ petition concerns the industrial unit proposed to be established by the ninth respondent in the said panchayat.

(2.) The undisputed facts are the following : During 2015, the ninth respondent, a private limited company purchased 4.0632 hectors of land within the limits of the panchayat for establishing a seafood related industrial unit. There were a few water channels in the said land. Earlier, the predecessors of the ninth respondent were interdicted from reclaiming the water channels in the land by the sixth respondent, the Village Officer by issuing a stop memo. Though the matter was taken up by the predecessors of the ninth respondent before the third respondent, the District Collector for vacating the stop memo, the third respondent confirmed the stop memo as per Ext. P3 order holding that the land is a wetland falling within the purview of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (the Act). The predecessors of the ninth respondent though moved the third respondent later for review of Ext. P3 order, the request made by them in that connection was also declined by the third respondent as per Ext. P4 order. The ninth respondent who purchased the land in the meanwhile moved the third respondent for vacating the stop memo and on the said request, the third respondent initially permitted the ninth respondent to conduct an Environmental Impact Study for the project proposed to be established by them by engaging M/s. KITCO Ltd, a technical consultancy organisation and later vacated the stop memo as per Ext. P8 order based on the report of M/s. KITCO Ltd, holding that the project would not offend any statutory provisions or create any impact on the environment. In the meanwhile, the ninth respondent applied to the fourth respondent, the Chief Town Planner for layout approval for construction of the buildings required for the industrial unit. On the said application, though layout approval was granted by the fourth respondent as per Ext. P9 order, the same was subject to the condition that the building permit shall be issued by the panchayat only after the grievances of the persons residing around the industrial unit are redressed. On the strength of Ext P8 order, the ninth respondent later moved the fourth respondent for vacating the aforesaid condition in Ext P9 order and the fourth respondent has vacated the said condition as per Ext P10 order. Later, on the strength of Exts P8 and P10 orders, the ninth respondent obtained Ext P1 building permit and started the construction of the industrial unit.

(3.) The writ petition was filed at that point of time alleging that the Local Level Monitoring Committee constituted under the Act had in fact inspected the land during 2013 and having found that the same is a wetland coming within the purview of the Act, recommended for action as per Ext P12 for restoration of the land under the Act. It was also alleged by the petitioners that on the basis of the said recommendation, the first petitioner preferred an application before the fifth respondent, the Local Level Monitoring Committee to include the said land also in the Data Bank prepared under the Act as wet land and the same is pending. According to the petitioners, the land purchased by the ninth respondent being a wetland, the establishment of the proposed industrial unit in the said land would contravene the provisions of the Act. It is also the case of the petitioners that establishment of an industrial unit in the aforesaid land would contravene the provisions of the 2011 Coastal Regulation Zone Notification (the CRZ Notification) issued under the Environment (Protection) Act. It is the further case of the petitioners that the land of the ninth respondent, at any rate, would fall within the definition of 'wetland' contained in Rule 2(g) of Wetland (Conservation and Management) Rules 2010 framed under the Environment (Protection) Act and therefore, an industrial unit cannot be established in the said land in the light of the provisions contained in the said Rules. The petitioners, therefore, challenge Ext. P8 order of the third respondent, Ext. P9 order the fourth respondent and Ext. P1 building permit issued by the seventh respondent in this writ petition on that basis. Petitioners are also claiming directions to the fifth respondent to include the land of the ninth respondent in the Data Bank prepared under the Act, and directions to the third respondent to act upon upon Ext. P12 recommendation of the third respondent and take steps to restore the land to its original position.