Kerala High Court
Salmikoya K vs Union Territory Of Lakshadweep on 1 November, 2024
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
WP(C) No.38200/2024 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. 38200 OF 2024 (Y)
PETITIONER:
SALMIKOYA K., AGED 84 YEARS S/O SHAMSUDHEEN KOYA, KEEPAT HOUSE,
AGATHI, LAKSHADWEEP, PIN - 682553
RESPONDENTS:
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 P5 and
all proceedings pursuant thereto to the extent it allots an extent of
30000 m2 (Southern Side - Thinnakara) to the Department of Tourism for the
purpose of 'Development, Operation, Maintenance and Management of Tent
City' at Thinnakkara 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
SRI.P.DEEPAK (SENIOR ADVOCATE) along with M/S.RILGIN V.GEORGE,
K.T.RAVEENDRAN & AKSHARA K.P., Advocates for the petitioner,
SRI.R.V.SREEJITH, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL for Respondents, the court
passed the following:
WP(C) No.38200/2024 2/7
DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J.
=================
WP(C) No.38200/2024
===============
Dated this, the 1st day of November, 2024
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P5 order
passed by the 2nd respondent to the extent it allots an extent of
30000 m2 of accreted land in Thinnakkara Island by the
Lakshadweep Administration to the Department of Tourism for the
purpose of development, operation, maintenance and
management of Tent City at Thinnakkara Island. According to the
petitioner, the accreted land allotted vide Ext.P5 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.P5 order is the property of the Government and
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.P5 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 Thinnakkara Island is ipso facto
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.P5 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)
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
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 Thinnakkara
Island of Union Territory of Lakshadweep.
Post on 14/11/2024.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
Rp
01-11-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38200/2024
Exhibit P5 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
