IMPORTANT POINT
Writ appeals against interim orders are maintainable if they substantially affect the rights of the parties, as clarified under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act.

JUDGMENT :

Anil K. Narendran, J.

These appeals arise out of the interim orders dated 01.11.2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.38200 of 2024 and W.P.(C)No.38174 of 2024. The appellants are respondents 1 to 4 in those writ petitions. The 5th respondent in those writ petitions, namely, Lakshadweep Coastal Zone Management Authority, is arrayed as the 2nd respondent in these writ appeals.

2. W.P.(C)No.38200 of 2024 is one filed by the 1st respondent in W.A.No.1780 of 2024 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P5 communication dated 24.06.2024 issued by the 2nd appellant District Collector to the 3rd appellant Director, Department of Tourism Development to the extent it allots 30,000 sq.m. of land (southern side of Thinnakkara) to the Department of Tourism for the purpose of development, operation, maintenance and management of Tent City at Thinnakkara Island. The petitioner has also sought for a declaration that the 1st appellant Union Territory of Lakshadweep Administration has no manner of any right, title or interest over the accreted land allotted to the 3rd appellant under Ext.P5. The documents marked as Exts.P2, P2(a) and P2(b) are copies of rough pattas (R.P.Nos.4544 of 1999, 4669 of 1996 and 4670 of 1996) issued after the completion of survey operations, in the name of Shamsudheen Koya (1st respondent's father) and others, in respect of property comprised in Survey Nos.6/1, 6/3, 7/1 and 7/3 of Thinnakkara Island.

3. W.P.(C)No.38174 of 2024 is one filed by the 1st respondent in W.A.No.1805 of 2024 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P6 communication dated 24.06.2024 issued by the 2nd appellant District Collector to the 3rd appellant Director, Department of Tourism Development to the extent it allots 12,640 sq.m. (eastern side of BSNL CLS) to the Department of Tourism for the purpose of development, operation, maintenance and management of Tent City at Bengaram Island. The petitioner has also sought for a declaration that the 1st appellant Union Territory of Lakshadweep Administration has no manner of any right, title or interest over the accreted land allotted to the 3rd appellant under Ext.P6. The document marked as Ext.P1(a) is a copy of rough patta (R.P.No.4551 of 1995) issued after the completion of survey operations, jointly in the name of Challakkada Sayed Mohammed (1st respondent's father) and others, in respect of property having an extent of 4170 sq.m. comprised in Survey No.16/8 of Bengaram Island.

4. On 01.11.2024, when the writ petitions came up for admission, the learned Single Judge, after considering the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Lakshadweep Administration with reference to the provisions contained in Regulations 11(4) and 78 of the Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands Land Revenue and Tenancy Regulations, 1965 and the law laid down by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Kasimkoya Biyyammabiyoda v. Union of India [2020 (5) KLT 63], found that the matter requires a detailed hearing. Hence the appellants herein are directed to file a statement within ten days and till then they are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the accreted land abutting the registered holding of the petitioner in the respective writ petitions, beyond and towards the sea on the eastern side in Thinnakkara Island and Bengaram Island. By the said order, the learned Single Judge posted the writ petitions on 14.11.2024.

5. The interim orders dated 01.11.2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.38200 of 2024 and W.P.(C)No.38174 of 2024 are under challenge in these writ appeals, invoking the provisions under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958.

6. On 08.11.2024, we heard arguments of the learned Additional Solicitor General of India for the appellants and the learned Senior Counsel for the 1st respondent-writ petitioner in the respective writ appeals.

7. During the course of arguments, the learned Additional Solicito