IMPORTANT POINTS
In between the private land and sea, there is a substantial vacant land, which was hitherto being used by the private individuals. Coconut trees that were growing on this non-private land were being enjoyed by these persons. Good number of those trees are to be cut for the road. The cutting of those coconut trees and loss of free access to the sea are the causes of this public interest litigation.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioners in these Writ petitions are residents of Agatti Island in the Union Territory of Lakshadweep. They have approached this Court being aggrieved by Exhibit P13 fax message sent by the Deputy Collector (HQ) to the 3rd respondent wherein the said authority has been directed to take expeditious steps to dispossess the petitioners from the land in their possession for the purpose of constructing a ‘Beach Road’ from the northern end of the Agatti Island to the Southern Side of the Island all along the western shore.

2. The petitioners contend that their registered holdings abut the sea on the western side and according to them, the accretions on the western side of their property form part of their registered holding and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same since time immemorial. They also contend that their possession of the accretions has been confirmed by the proceedings taken under various regulations applicable to the Union Territory of Lakshadweep. According to the petitioners, if the respondents intend to acquire their properties for the construction of the beach road, they have no other alternative but to acquire the property by complying with the procedure established by law.

3. The petitioners state that a person by name E.P. Firoz Koya filed a Public Interest Litigation contending that the construction of the beach road is contrary to the terms of the approved Integrated Island Management Plan (IIMP for short) since the construction was being carried out without leaving the requisite clearance as per the approved plan. A Division Bench of this Court, after hearing the litigant and the Lakshadweep Administration, dismissed the Writ Petition against which Special Leave Petition has been preferred before the Apex Court which is pending adjudication. While dismissing the Writ petition, this Court had held that the remedy of the objectors lies before the Civil Court as the proceedings initiated by the Administration pursuant to directions issued by this Court in en earlier Writ Petition under the Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands Land Revenue and Tenancy Regulation, 1965 (‘LMA Regulation’ for short) had become final and was not subjected to any challenge. The said order has been challenged before the Apex Court and is pending.

4. The petitioners state that several suits were instituted by persons similarly placed as the petitioners seeking injunction before the Sub Court, Amini, and when the application seeking injunction was dismissed, the plaintiffs took up the matter before the District Court, Kavaratti, which Court was pleased to grant them interim relief. Copies of such orders are produced as Exhibits P3 to P7. The petitioners state that they intend to approach the Civil Court and have issued notice to the Administration under Section 80 of the C.P.C. However, due to the lack of transportation facilities, they are not in a position to approach the Civil Court and establish their rights. It is further stated that right to property is a constitutional as well a human right and as steps are being initiated on a war footing basis to construct the beach road, they have no other alternative but to approach this Court to protect their property rights. It is based on these prefatory facts that the petitioners have approached this Court seeking to quash Exhibit P13 and also for directing the respondents from dispossessing the petitioners from the land abutting their registered land beyond and towards the sea on the western side in Agatti Island of the Union territory of Lakshadweep.

5. The respondents 2 to 4 have filed a detailed counter affidavit controverting the contentions raised by the petitioners. Their specific contention is that the petitioners have suppressed material facts and have approached this Court concealing the previous proceedings and also the fact that the rights of the parties including the petitioners were conclusively and finally decided in such proceedings. They st