Kerala High Court
Barkath vs Union Territory Of Lakshadweep on 1 November, 2024
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
WP(C) No.38174/2024 1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
Friday, the 1st day of November 2024 / 10th Karthika, 1946
WP(C) NO. 38174 OF 2024(V)
PETITIONER:
BARKATH, AGED 50 YEARS S/O SAYED MOHAMMED CHALLAKADA, KURIYAPPADA,
AGATHI, LAKSHADWEEP, PIN - 682553
RESPONDENT:
1. UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR,
OFFICE OF THE LAKSHADWEEP ADMINISTRATOR, KAVARATTI, PIN - 682555
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP
ADMINISTRATION, COLLECTORATE, KAVARATTI, LAKSHADWEEP, PIN - 682555
3. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM DEVELOPMENT, UNION TERRITORY OF
LAKSHADWEEP ADMINISTRATION, KAVARATTI, PIN - 682555
4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR/BLOCK DEVELPOMENT OFFICER, AGATHI ISLAND,
LAKSHADWEEP, PIN - 682553
5. LAKSHADWEEP COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, LAKSHADWEEP
ADMINISTRATION, KAVARATTI ISLAND, LAKSHADWEEP-, PIN - 682555
Writ petition (civil) praying inter alia that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed along with the WP(C) the High Court be
pleased to issue an interim order staying the operation of Exhibit P6 and
all proceedings pursuant thereto to the extent it allots an extent of
12640 m² [Eastern side of BSNL (CLS)] to the Department of Tourism for the
purpose of 'Development, Operation, Maintenance and Management of Tent
City' at Bangaram Island, pending disposal of the above writ petition.
This petition coming on for admission upon perusing the petition and
the affidavit filed in support of WP(C) and upon hearing the arguments of
ADV.P.DEEPAK, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL AS INSTRUCTED BY ADV.RILGIN
V.GEORGE, ADV.K.T.RAVEENDRAN and of AKSHARA K.P., Advocates for the
Petitioner and of ADV.R.V.SREEJITH, STANDING COUNSEL for the Respondents,
the court passed the following:
WP(C) No.38174/2024 2/7
DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J.
=================
WP(C) No.38174/2024
===============
Dated this, the 1st day of November, 2024
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P6 order passed by the 2nd respondent to the extent it allots an extent of 12640 m2 of accreted land in Bangaram Island by the Lakshadweep Administration to the Department of Tourism for the purpose of development, operation, maintenance and management of Tent City at Bangaram Island. According to the petitioner, the accreted land allotted vide Ext.P6 to the Department of Tourism lies contiguously to the property owned by him on its eastern boundary which is bounded by the Arabian Sea and title to the accreted land vests in the riparian owners, including him, by the doctrine of accretion. Petitioner alleges that accreted land has been allotted to the department of tourism development on the erroneous assumption that the accreted land specified in Ext.P6 order is the property of the Government and WP(C) No.38174/2024 3/7 WP(C) No.38174/2024 -:2:- that the Government has absolute and exclusive title to the accreted land specified therein under the Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands Land Revenue and Tenancy Regulation, 1965 (for short, Tenancy Regulation). The petitioner further alleges that the allotment of accreted land to the department of tourism has been done without any prior consultation with any of the stakeholders including the elected local self government bodies contrary to the directives issued by the expert committee constituted by the Supreme Court. It is the definite case of the petitioner that the allotment of accreted land by the 2nd respondent to the 3rd respondent is absolutely without authority of law and thus unsustainable. The petitioner sought for stay of the operation of Ext.P6 order.
2. I have heard Sri.P.Deepak, the learned senior counsel instructed by Sri.Rilgin V.George, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.R.V.Sreejith, the learned standing counsel for the Lakshadweep Administration.
3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Government/UTLA is labouring under the misconception that all accreted land in Bangaram Island is ipso facto WP(C) No.38174/2024 4/7 WP(C) No.38174/2024 -:3:- Government land conveniently glossing over the rightful claims of the riparian owners under the doctrine of accretion. The learned counsel further submitted that Section 11(1) of the Tenancy Regulation expressly stipulates that all lands, which are not the property of any person, are declared to be the property of the Government. The explanation to the aforesaid provision further explains that "land" referred to in sub-section (1) includes any 'newly formed islands'. By virtue of the aforesaid provision, the Government has title only to all lands, which are not the property of any person, and any newly formed islands. On the other hand, title to the accreted land specified in Ext.P6 vest in the owners of the riparian lands including the petitioner by the doctrine of accretion, submitted the counsel. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the Lakshadweep Administration submitted that the petitioner is not in possession of any extent of accreted land as alleged by him in the writ petition. The learned standing counsel further submitted that the possession and ownership of the accreted land vests with the Government alone and riparian owner cannot make any claim over the same. Reliance was placed on Kasimkoya Biyyammabiyoda v. Union of India (2020 (5) WP(C) No.38174/2024 5/7 WP(C) No.38174/2024 -:4:- KLT 63). The learned standing counsel also submitted that the contentions advanced by the petitioner is with the objective of delaying the construction of the Tent City and nothing else.
4. In Kasmikoya (supra), it was held that the possession and ownership of the accreted land vests with the Government alone. However, a reading of the said judgment would show that the petitioners therein challenged the orders of eviction from the accreted land passed by the Deputy Collector, Agatti before this court in writ petition. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Collector to finalise the eviction proceedings within a time frame. Thereafter, the Collector after hearing the petitioners as well as the Administration passed an order that the accreted foreshore land is vested with the Government by virtue of Rule 11 of the Regulation. The petitioners did not challenge the orders passed by the Collector either before the civil court in terms of Regulation 11(4) or before the Administrator in appeal under Regulation 78. Instead, they chose to file writ petition challenging the steps taken by the Administration to dispossess them that too after four years. It was in these circumstances the Single Judge took the view that the possession and ownership of WP(C) No.38174/2024 6/7 WP(C) No.38174/2024 -:5:- the accreted land vests with the Government and the said position having been declared in the order of the Collector, the challenge belatedly made by the petitioners cannot be sustained. It appears that there is no such adjudication by the Collector in the instant case.
5. Having heard both sides, I am of the view that the matter requires a detailed hearing. Hence, the respondents are directed to file a statement within ten days. Till then, the respondents are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the accreted land abutting the registered holding of the petitioner beyond and towards the sea on the eastern side in Bangaram Island of Union Territory of Lakshadweep.
Post on 14/11/2024.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
Rp
01-11-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
WP(C) No.38174/2024 7/7
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38174/2024
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 24.06.2024 ADDRESSED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT 01-11-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar