Construction on lands designated as paddy fields under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act is prohibited unless specific permissions are obtained.

J U D G M E N T

[W. A. Nos. 1564, 1576, 1742 & 1909 of 2015]

Shaji P. Chaly, J.

The captioned writ appeals arise out of a common judgment of the learned Single Judge in W. P. (C) Nos. 5421and 22890 of 2011, and 16706 of 2014.

2. Quilon Educational Trust, the appellant in W. A. Nos. 1564 and 1576 of 2015, is the petitioner in W. P. (C) No. 22890 of 2011, and the other writ petitions are filed by the Paristhithi Samrakshana Ekopana Samithi, which is the appellant in W. A. No. 1742 of 2015. W. A. No. 1909 of 2015 is filed by the 9th respondent in W. P. (C) No. 22890 of 2011. In the writ petitions filed by the Paristhithi Samrakshana Ekopana Samithi and another, they are seeking to quash Exts. P8 and P9 building permits dated 07.02.2011 issued by the Adichanalloor Grama Panchayat, and Ext. P14 certificate issued by the Local Level Monitoring Committee represented by the Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Kollam dated 30.12.2010, showing the status of several properties belonging to the Quilon Educational Trust, Vadakkevila Village, Kollam District, and for other related reliefs.

3. The basic contention advanced by the Paristhithi Samrakshana Ekopana Samithi is that the properties to which building permit is granted by the Secretary of the Adichanalloor Grama Panchayat are paddy fields, and therefore, construction is prohibited as per Section 14 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ; though the Quilon Educational Trust, the appellant in the two appeals specified above, has contended that the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat grants the permit, after taking into account the condition of the land and the purpose for which the land is required to be utilized, to establish an Engineering College. In fact, in the writ petitions filed by the Paristhithi Samrakshana Ekopana Samithi, issues with respect to notification issued by the coastal Zone Management Authority were also raised.

4. Learned Single Judge, after considering the rival submissions, has rendered the impugned common judgment dated 20.05.2015, as follows:-

“10. For convenience of discussion, the petitioners in WP(C)

No.22890/2011 can be referred to as, "the Trust". The petitioners in the other writ petitions can be referred to as, "the local residents".

11. The Trust is intending to start an engineering college; and for that purpose, they started the construction of certain buildings in the property owned by them. The local residents opposed the construction on the ground that majority of the land, on which the construction is made, is paddy field; and the construction was in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Paddy Land and Wet Land Act as well as the Coastal Zone Regulations. It appears from the pleadings that the local authority has granted permission. This, according to the local residents, is incompetent, because, an act, which would not have been permitted as per the provisions of the Kerala Paddy Land and Wet Land Act as well as the Coastal Zone Regulations, has been granted by the local authority. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kollam, as per Ext.P9 order produced in WP(C) No.22890/2011, stopped the further construction. However, this was subject to the approval of the project by the State Level Monitoring Committee and clearance from the Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority. Therefore, it is open to the Trust to bring their contentions before the State Level Monitoring Committee through a proper petition.

12. It can be seen from Ext.P6 in WP(C) No.16706/2014 that the Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority has granted clearance to the project. This is put to challenge by the local residents on the ground that the said order was passed in their absence. However, it can be seen that as per Ext.P6 order produced in that case, the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority has forwarded the matter to the National Coastal Zone Management Authority, which is the 4th respondent in WP(C) No.16706/2014. As the grievance of the local