Kerala High Court
Kalliyoor Grama Panchayath, ... vs M.Benoy on 12 February, 2025
WP(C)NO.6914/2012 & conn. 1
2025:KER:10902
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 23RD MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO.6914 OF 2012
PETITIONER:
KALLIYOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KALLIYOOR,
KALLIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV R.GOPAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 SHERIN HAFEES
W/O.HAFEES, TC.31/555, SHALIMAR HOUSE,
SASTHAMANGALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 ADDL.R2:
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695024.
3 ADDL.R3:
CENTRAL WETLANDS REGULATORY AUTHORITY,
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST AND CLIMATE
CHANGE, NEW DELHI-110003.
(ADDL.R2 AND R3 ARE SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDER DATED 24.10.2017 IN WPC.6914/2012.)
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW
WP(C)NO.6914/2012 & conn. 2
2025:KER:10902
SRI.S.KANNAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR
SRI.V.HARISH
SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH
SRI.S.ABDUL RAZZAK, R1
SRI.M.P.PRAKASH, SC, R3
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 12.02.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).28123/2014 AND 30616/2014,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)NO.6914/2012 & conn. 3
2025:KER:10902
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 23RD MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 28123 OF 2014
PETITIONER :
KALLIYOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
KALLIYOOR, KALLIYOOR P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHPAURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.R.GOPAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 M.BENOY
S/O.MALAKKI, KANJIRAMVILA VADAKKE PUTHEN VEEDU,
KAKKAMOOLA, KALLIYOOR P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 ADDL.R2 : GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 024.
3 ADDL.R3 : CENTRAL WETLAND REGULATORY AUTHORITY
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST AND CLIMATE
CHANGE, NEW DELHI - 110 003.
R2&R3 SUO MOTO IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT.24.10.17
BY ADVS. SMT.RAMEENA.P.K.
SRI.S.KANNAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.T.U.ZIYAD, R1
SRI.M.P.PRAKASH, SC, R3
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 12.02.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).6914/2012 AND CONNECTED
CASE, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)NO.6914/2012 & conn. 4
2025:KER:10902
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 23RD MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO.30616 OF 2014
PETITIONER:
KALLIYOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KALLIYOOR,
KALLIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.R.GOPAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 M.BENOY
S/O.MALAKKI,
KANJIRAMVILA VADAKKE PUTHEN VEEDU,
KAKKAMOOLA, KALLIYOOR P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
ADDL.R2
2 GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695024.
ADDL.R3
3 CENTRAL WETLANDS REGULATORY AUTHORITY,
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT,
FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE, NEW DELHI-110 003
SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 24.10.2017
WP(C)NO.6914/2012 & conn. 5
2025:KER:10902
ADDL.R4
4 STATE WETLAND AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY,
DEVIKRIPA, PALLIMUKKU, PETTAH,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 024
IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 27-02-2018 IN
I.A.No.3314/2018.
BY ADVS.
SMT.RAMEENA.P.K.
SRI.S.KANNAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.T.U.ZIYAD
SRI.M.P.PRAKASH, R3 & R4
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 12.02.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C)No.6914/2012 AND CONNECTED
CASE, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)NO.6914/2012 & conn. 6
2025:KER:10902
JUDGMENT
[WP(C) Nos.6914/2012, 28123/2014, 30616/2014]
These Writ Petitions raise common questions concerning
construction activities in the vicinity of Vellayani lake,
Thiruvananthapuram. They are considered and disposed of together.
2. Vellayani lake is a freshwater lake, part of which is
situated within the jurisdictional limits of the petitioner Panchayat.
These Writ Petitions have been filed by the Panchayat seeking to
quash the orders/notices issued by the Tribunal for Local Self-
Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram, inter alia directing it
to act upon the building permit applications preferred by the owners
of lands situated in the vicinity of the lake.
3. Brief facts as narrated in these three Writ Petitions are
as follows:
4. The 1st respondent in W.P.(C) No.6914 of 2012 had
filed an application seeking a building permit for residential purposes
2025:KER:10902
in Survey Nos.521/2,3,4,5,5-1,6,6-1,7,8,16 & 17 of Kalliyoor Village.
A boundary of her said property lies alongside the Vellayani lake and
the same is demarcated and separated from the lake by a
compound wall which was constructed as per the permit granted by
the Panchayat. Permission to construct a residential building was
granted by the Panchayat on 30.06.2008 (Exts.P1 and P2). The said
permit was valid till 29.06.2011. The 1st respondent vide Ext.P3
sought renewal and extension of the permit. The Panchayat
Committee had on 28.01.2011 taken a decision (Ext.P4) that the
construction work near Vellayani lake can only be done 50 metres
away from the Vellayani water level. The application preferred for
renewal was rejected vide Ext.P5, stating that the Assistant
Engineer of the Local Self Government Department had conducted a
local inspection and reported that the proposed construction does
not provide sufficient distance from the lake. Ext.P6 appeal was filed
by the 1st respondent before the Tribunal for Local Self-Government
Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram, challenging the rejection. The
Panchayat preferred Ext.P7 written statement before the Tribunal.
The 1st respondent had filed an application for renewal of permit for
2025:KER:10902
the construction of a compound wall, which too had been rejected by
the Panchayat. The said order too was challenged in an appeal
before the Tribunal. In the said appeal, the Tribunal issued Ext.P8
order confirming the order of the Panchayat and inter alia directed
the Panchayat to make an earnest attempt to calculate the entire
extent of the lake with the help of other Panchayats or local self
Institutions. The Ombudsman for Local self-government Institutions
had also stayed the construction of compound wall by the 1 st
respondent vide Ext.P9 order dated 05.01.2011. Finally, on
25.02.2012, the Tribunal rendered Ext.P12 order dated 25.02.2012
in Ext.P6 appeal filed by the 1 st respondent directing the Panchayat
to renew the permit within one month from the date of the order. The
said order of the Tribunal (Ext.P12) is sought to be quashed by the
Panchayat in W.P.(C) No.6914 of 2012.
5. The 1st respondent in W.P.(C) No.28123 of 2014 is the
owner of a property situated in the vicinity of Vellayani lake. He had
filed Ext.P1 application seeking permission to construct a compound
wall on his property having 12 Ares of land in re-survey No.578/14 of
2025:KER:10902
Kalliyoor Village. The said application was rejected by the Panchayat
vide Ext.P3 order which was in line with Ext.P2 decision taken by
the Panchayat Committee citing that the construction work near
Vellayani lake can be done only 50 metres away from the Vellayani
water level. Challenging Ext.P3 order, the 1 st respondent filed
Appeal No.359 of 2014 (Ext.P4) before the Tribunal for Local Self-
Government Institutions. The Panchayat filed Ext.P5 written
statement before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide Ext.P9 order,
directed the Panchayat Secretary to fix the boundary of the lake with
the help of the Taluk Surveyor to determine whether any
encroachment has been committed by the 1 st respondent. Further, it
was directed to find whether the construction of a compound wall will
in any way violate Rule 4 (vi) of the Wetlands (Conservation and
Management) Rules, 2010 and if not, reconsider the application for
building permit. Ext.P10 order of the Tribunal is sought to be
quashed in W.P.(C) No.28123 of 2014.
6. The 1st respondent in W.P.(C) No.30616 of 2014 had
preferred an application (Ext.P1) seeking a permit to construct a two-
2025:KER:10902
storey building of 275.81 M2 on his property having an extent of 12
Ares in Re-Sy.No.578/14 of the petitioner Panchayat. The western
and southern boundaries of the property is Vellayani lake. Pursuant
to the unanimous decision taken by the Panchayat committee on
28.01.2011 in Ext.P2, the application of the 1 st respondent was
rejected vide Ext.P3 dated 07.02.2014. The 1 st respondent
challenged Ext.P3 rejection before the Tribunal in appeal (Ext.P4)
and the Panchayat preferred Ext.P5 written statement therein. The
Panchayat had taken steps to measure out and demarcate the
Vellayani lake as revealed from Exts.P7, P8 and P9. The Tribunal on
03.09.2014 rendered Ext.P10 order inter alia directing the Secretary
of the Panchayat to fix the boundary of the lake abutting the property
of the respondent with the help of the Taluk surveyor and thereafter
to ascertain whether the construction of the building would violate
Rule 4 (vi) of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules,
2010 (hereinafter referred to as "the Wetland Rules, 2010") and if no
violation is noted, to consider the application of the respondent
seeking building permit. Alleging that the order of the Tribunal had
not been complied with by the Secretary of the Panchayat, Ext.P11
2025:KER:10902
application was filed by the respondent seeking to initiate contempt
proceedings. Ext.P12 notice dated 05.11.2014 was issued by the
Tribunal in the said application. Panchayat has in W.P.(C) No.30616
of 2014 sought to quash Exts.P10 order and P12 notice.
7. The 1st respondent in these Writ Petitions viz., the
individuals who had preferred building permit applications, have filed
detailed counter affidavits controverting the contentions of the
petitioner Panchayat and defending the orders rendered by the
Tribunal in their favour. The 1 st respondent in W.P.(C) No.6914 of
2012 has along with her counter affidavit produced Exts.R1 (a) to R1
(e) and have relied on them to substantiate her contentions. She has
also filed an additional counter affidavit producing Exts.R1 (f) to R1
(h).
8. This Court had vide interim order dated 24.10.2017,
after taking note of a public interest litigation filed and pending
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court concerning wetlands across the
country, deemed it necessary to ascertain whether the Vellayani lake
would fall within the wetlands identified by the State Government
under the Wetland Rules, 2010. In furtherance thereof, this Court
2025:KER:10902
had vide order dated 24.10.2017 suo motu impleaded the
Government of Kerala, represented by the Secretary, Department of
Environment, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram, as the
additional 2nd respondent and the Central Wetlands Regulatory
Authority, Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate change, New
Delhi, as the 3rd additional respondent in these Writ Petitions.
Subsequently, vide order dated 27.02.2018 the State Wetland
Authority Kerala (SWAK), represented by its Member Secretary was
impleaded as the 4th additional respondent in W.P.(C) No.30616 of
2014. In the said PIL pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a
direction had been issued to identify the wetlands for the purpose of
Rule 4 of the Wetlands Rules, 2010. Memos dated 20.05.2019 and
22.05.2019 had been filed by the Government Pleader in these W.P.
(C)s producing as Annexure I a status report on the Vellayani fresh
water lake inter alia stating that the lake is proposed to be notified as
a wetland under the Wetland (Conservation & Management) Rules,
2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the Wetland Rules, 2017") and that
the said Rules are applicable only to notified wetlands recognised as
'wetlands of international importance' under the Ramsar Convention
2025:KER:10902
viz., Vembanad Kol, Ashtamudi Estuary and Sasthamkotta Fresh
water lake.
9. A counter affidavit dated 30.01.2018 had been filed by
the Member Secretary of the State Wetland Authority Kerala
(SWAK), the additional 4th respondent in W.P.(C) No.30616 of 2014.
It has been inter alia stated therein that the Government of India had
in exercise of the rule-making powers conferred by the relevant
provisions of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 promulgated the
Wetland Rules, 2010, which has been superseded by the Wetland
Rules, 2017. Freshwater lakes too come within the purview of the
Rules of 2010 and 2017 and hence Vellayani lake falls under the
said Rules. Rule 4 of the Wetland Rules, 2010 imposes restrictions
on activities within wetlands. Rule 4 (2) of the Wetland Rules, 2017
enumerates the prohibited activities. The State Wetlands Authority
has been empowered to grant clearances or identify, in consultation
with the State Government, the areas for the grant of clearances. It
has also been stated that SWAK is in the process of preparing a list
of wetlands with the support of Kerala State Remote Sensing and
Environment Centre (KSREC) and the preparation of the inventory of
2025:KER:10902
wetlands of Kerala is also under progress.
10. Heard Sri.R.Gopan, Advocate for the petitioner and
Sri.Abdul Razak, Advocate, Sri.T.U.Ziyad, Advocate for the
respondents, Sri.S.Kannan, learned Government Pleader and
Sri.M.P.Prakash, learned Standing Counsel for the 3 rd additional
respondent Central Wetlands Regulatory Authority.
11. Sri.M.P.Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the 3 rd
additional respondent, submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court
had on 08.02.2017 rendered an interim order in W.P.(C) No.230 of
2001 (M.K.Balakrishnan and others v. Union of India and others)
directing that the principles in Rule 4 of the Wetland Rules, 2017 are
to be made applicable to the 2,01,503 number of wetlands spread
across the country which had been mapped by the Union of India.
Thereafter vide an interim order dated 03.04.2017 in the same W.P.
(C), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed that all the interim
orders passed in the W.P.(C) No.230 of 2001 be circulated to all the
High Courts specified in the order which includes this Court. An
office memorandum dated 08.03.2022 bearing No.F.No.W-4/4/2022-
WTL has been issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest &
2025:KER:10902
Climate Change (Wetlands Division), New Delhi, in furtherance of
the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P.(C) No.230 of
2001 inter alia clarifying/ reiterating that the 2,01,503 wetlands as
per the National Wetland Inventory and Assessment (NWIA), 2011
should be protected as per Rule 4 of the Wetlands (Conservation
and Management) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the
Wetland Rules, 2017) and that the said protection is irrespective of
the applicability of the notification as per the said Rules. As regards
the Vellayani lake, a letter dated 18.01.2023 bearing
No.SWAK/A1/68/2017 issued by the State Wetland Authority Kerala
(SWAK) attaching a report of the present position of the process of
notifying Vellayani lake as per the Wetlands Rules, 2017 has been
handed over for perusal. The said report reads as follows:
"Vellayani lake is included in the list of selected 40
wetlands in the State which are undergoing the
notification process as per Wetlands (Conservation and
management) Rules, 2017. The demarcation of Vellayani
Lake boundary has been done in association with Kerala
State Remote Sensing and Environment Center
(KSREC). The brief document of the wetland has been
prepared and the same needs to be approved by the
SWAK technical committee. In order to complete the Brief
Document preparation, information regarding the
activities to be regulated, prohibited and permitted, need
to be collected from the local bodies through the District
Collector before submitting it to the technical committee
for approval. For this, the information including the village
2025:KER:10902
and local body wise map of Vellayani Lake has been
received from KSREC on 12.01.2023. The same will be
forwarded to the District Collector immediately.
Also, Ecosystem Health Card of the wetland has been
prepared and Integrated Management Action Plan is
being prepared. Besides these, 'Wetland Mitras'-the
citizen volunteer platform under the 100 Transformative
Ideas flagship programme of Government of India were
formed for the Vellayani Lake. Taking into account the
importance of protecting the Vellayani Lake, initial steps
are being taken to declare the lake as a Ramsar site. As
part of this, a field visit by the SWAK team has been
carried out on 9th and 10th January 2023. Considering
the importance of wetlands, the Ministry of Environment
Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) has included
Vellayani from Kerala among the 100 wetlands put
forward for the regeneration of wetlands."
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner Panchayat
submitted that Vellayani lake is the second-largest freshwater lake in
the State. It is the source of drinking water supply to the
Thiruvananthapuram Corporation, Kalliyoor Grama Panchayat and
Venganoor Grama Panchayats. The drinking water supply for the
Vizhinjam Harbour project is also proposed to be met from the
Vellayani lake. The lake is already under threat due to encroachment
by several persons including the petitioner. The fundamental rights
of the people in the locality would be detrimentally affected if the
building construction permit is renewed as directed in the impugned
order of the Tribunal. The Panchayat had taken Ext.P4 decision
2025:KER:10902
based on Wetland Rules, 2010. Referring to W.P.(C) No.6914 of
2012, the learned counsel submitted that Ext.P1 plan produced
therein reveals that the proposed construction is by the side of the
Vellayani lake. The Tribunal while issuing Ext.P10 order directing to
renew the permit had erroneously interpreted Rule 4(vi) of the
Wetlands Rules, 2010. The building permit had been issued prior to
the coming into force of the Wetland Rules, 2010. The respondent in
W.P.(C) No.6914 of 2012, has not commenced any construction of
the residential building. A building permit cannot be renewed
violating the existing rules viz., the Rules of 2017. Whether the
proposed construction site is part of Vellayani lake or not, can be
determined only after completing the survey of Vellayani lake. The
finding arrived at by the Tribunal that the construction of the building
of the appellant will not in any way encroach into the Vellayani lake
is not based on any reliable material. It is also submitted that the
property in W.P.(C) No.6914 of 2012 comprised in survey numbers
viz., 521/1,4,5,6,8,9, 16 & 17 of Kalliyoor Village within the petitioner
Panchayat stands categorised as a Wetland in the data bank
maintained as per the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland
2025:KER:10902
Act, 2008 (for short "the Act of 2008"). The boundaries of the lake
can be determined only after a proper survey on the basis of the
1927 settlement plan, which is to be carried out by a panel of
surveyors. As regards the direction in Ext.P9 order challenged in
W.P.(C) No.28123 of 2014, it is submitted that it is not practically
feasible for the Panchayat Secretary to fix the boundaries of the lake
abutting the property of the respondent with the help of the Taluk
Surveyor as directed by the Tribunal. The proposed construction site
is part of Vellayani lake and only after completing a detailed survey
can the permit application be considered. Hence Ext.P9 order of the
Tribunal impugned in W.P.(C) No.28123 of 2014, is illegal
unsustainable and fit to be quashed. As regards Ext.P10 order in
W.P.(C) No.30616 of 2014 which inter alia directs the Secretary of
the Panchayat to fix the boundary of the lake abutting the property of
the respondent with the help of the Taluk surveyor and thereafter to
ascertain whether the construction of the building would violate Rule
4 (VI) of the Wetlands Rules, 2010 is concerned, the same is
assailed by the learned counsel for the Panchayat on the same
grounds as above and it is submitted that the Ext.P12 notice issued
2025:KER:10902
pursuant to the I.A. alleging contempt for non compliance of the
Ext.P10 order is also unsustainable in law and fit to be quashed.
13. Per Contra, Sri.Abdul Razak, the learned counsel
appearing for the 1st respondent in W.P.(C) No.6914 of 2012
strenuously contended that the order of the Tribunal is legal and
valid and it does not call for any interference. The learned counsel
submitted that the Writ Petition filed by the Panchayat is not legally
sustainable and assails it on more than one count. The building
permit that had already been issued to the 1 st respondent by the
petitioner Panchayat was valid till 2011. Application for renewal of
permit was submitted on time and in accordance with law. The
same was rejected vide Ext.P5, stating that the Assistant
Engineer, LSGD who inspected the property had reported that the
proposed construction does not set apart the 'prescribed distance'
from the lake. The said report produced as Ext.P3 in page 2 is a
single-line report. Ext.P4 decision is taken by the Panchayat
Committee in its meeting and the Committee has no power,
authority, or jurisdiction to fix the distance criterion of 50 mtr. under
the Act of 2008. Ext.P4 is a cryptic one-sentence resolution by which
2025:KER:10902
the rights of the citizens cannot be taken away by the petitioner
Panchayat. Site sanction for the construction of compound wall was
issued to the concerned 1st respondent on 13.02.2006 and Ext.P2
building permit was issued on 30.06.2008. The site sanction was
renewed on 21.12.2010. The property of the petitioner is clearly
demarcated from the Vellayani lake by a compound wall. Ext.R1 (d)
clearly reveals that the Secretary in charge of the Panchayat had
specifically pointed out in the meeting held on 03.03.2012 that the
building permit issued to the 1st respondent has to be renewed.
Ext.R1 (e) letter dated 14.03.2012 which had been issued to the
petitioner Panchayat by the Government clearly instructed the
Panchayat to comply with the direction of the Tribunal within the
specified time. The same had been suppressed by the petitioner
Panchayat and hence the Panchayat is estopped by conduct from
challenging Ext.P12 decision of the Tribunal by filing a Writ Petition.
The site inspection report was furnished by the Assistant Engineer
and not by the Assistant Executive Engineer as averred in the Writ
Petition. The relevant minutes book of the petitioner Panchayat
produced as Ext.R1 (a) reveals alterations to the entries therein and
2025:KER:10902
the same was made with malicious intent to deny the renewal of the
petitioner's permit. There is no provision in the Kerala Panchayat Raj
Act, 1994, Kerala Municipality Building Rules or Kerala Panchayat
Building Rules, 2011 empowering the Panchayat to adopt a
resolution mandating distance restrictions and hence the restriction
stipulated is unenforceable in law. The Panchayat has no power to
make subordinate legislation. The Panchayat committee has no
power to interfere with the renewal of a building permit and the sole
power in the said respect is vested with the Secretary of the
Panchayat and interference by the Panchayat committee in the
matter is illegal. The learned counsel relied on Section 185 B of the
Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and Rule 17(4) of the Kerala
Panchayat Building Rules, 2011 to buttress his contentions. There is
no allegation of any encroachment by the respondent onto the
Vellayani lake and the contention that the boundary of the
respondent's property can be fixed only after surveying the lake is
incorrect. The boundaries of the respondent's property had been
clearly demarcated by the Taluk Surveyor in the presence of
revenue and Panchayat authorities and a compound wall has been
2025:KER:10902
constructed. Respondent's property is pucca garden land and
coconut trees aged 20 years along with other crops are standing on
the said property. The Panchayat had in Ext.P6 specifically admitted
that the boundary wall was being constructed by the respondent
without any encroachment and as per the permit and plan issued.
The contention of the Panchayat that a permit for construction within
50 mtr. of the lake cannot be granted is unsustainable as it is against
statutory rules in force. Ext.P8 order of the Tribunal did not interfere
with or revoke the permit for construction of the compound wall
issued to the respondent. The said order of the Tribunal vouchsafes
for the fact that the construction of the compound wall is legal and in
accordance with the law. Ext.P3 application dated 01.06.2011 for
renewal of Ext.P2 building permit dated 30.06.2008 was filed within
the prescribed time. Ext.P5 rejection was only on 14.07.2011 and
the said decision after 30 days had made the permit to be deemed
valid under Section 235 K (2) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994
and Rule 14 (92) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules (KPBR).
Ext.R1(f) photographs evidence that the property of the 1 st
respondent is an enclosed house site with a compound wall which
2025:KER:10902
as stated above had been constructed before 2011. Ext.P12 order
was rendered by the Tribunal based on facts revealed vide title
deeds, possession certificate, land tax receipt, Village Officer's
report, Survey Report, CRZ clearance, site sanction and Ext.P2
permit. Reports of the Deputy Director of the Panchayat and Village
Officer which are part of Ext.P6 specifically reveal that the 1 st
respondent's land is registered garden land, demarcated by a
compound wall, has road access and lies adjacent to the Vellayani
Agricultural College. Grounds on which building permit can be
cancelled or revoked by the Panchayat have been specifically
enumerated in Rules 13 and 18 of the KPBR, the Panchayat Raj Act
of 1994. The KPBR does not confer any power to revoke a permit for
reasons other than that specified therein. Ext.P5 decision refusing
renewal of Ext.P2 is not based on any reason sustainable in law and
hence was rightly found so by the Tribunal. There is no reason to
challenge the said decision of the Tribunal. Relying on Ext.R1 (g)
which is a notified data dated 23.10.2020, the learned counsel for
the 1st respondent contended that the Wet Land Authority of Kerala
(SWAK) has notified a list of wetlands in the state and the Vellayani
2025:KER:10902
lake is not a wetland notified under the Wetlands (Conservations and
Management) Rules, 2017 and is uninfluenced by tidal action.
Similarly, relying on Ext.R1(h) it is submitted that the data
maintained by the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority
(KCZMA) does not include Vellayani lake among water bodies
influenced by tidal action. The Wetlands Rules, 2010 and 2017 do
not stipulate any restriction against the renewal of building permits
like Ext.P2 which has already been granted and no material has
been produced by the petitioner Panchayat to support the allegation
of violation of the Wetland Rules. Building permits cannot be
revoked merely because the adjacent or surrounding property, which
is clearly demarcated, is a wetland. The 1 st respondent is in law
entitled to get Ext.P2 building permit renewed so as to enable her to
continue and complete the construction as per the plan sanctioned.
The learned counsel for the 1st respondent in W.P.(C) No.6914 of
2012 thus contended that no sustainable allegation of any apparent
defect or error of jurisdiction or non-observance of the rules of
natural justice has been made out in Writ Petition No.6914 of 2012
to warrant issuance of a writ of certiorari against the order of the
2025:KER:10902
Tribunal (Ext.P12) impugned therein. So as to substantiate the
above contentions put forth, Sri.Abdul Razak, learned counsel for
the 1st respondent placed reliance on the dictum laid down in
Dharmadom Paristhithi Samrakshana Samithi v. Dharmadom
Grama Panchayat (2010 (2) KLT 194); Jose Thomas Pattara v.
Uzhavoor Grama Panchayat (2022 (5) KLT 100); Jerin J. Royees
v. Secretary, Thycattussery Grama Panchayat (2021 (4) KLT
675); Sinoj Thomas v. Balal Grama Panchayat (2023 (4) KLT
256); Sasidharan v. State of Kerala (2010 (3) KLT 16); Ashraf v.
Thamarasery Grama Panchayat (2023 (1) KLT 751);
Padmanabhan v. Deputy Director of Panchayaths (2024 (2) KLT
190); Jafarkhan v. Kochumarakkar (2012) 1 KLT 491); Khimji
Vidhu v. Premier High School [(1999) 9 SCC 264].
14. The learned counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent
in W.P.(C) No.28123 of 2014 and in W.P.(C) No.30616 of 2014
made submissions in line with those put forth by Sri. Abdul Razak.
They further contended that there are no tidal actions in Vellayani
lake and the same is an artificial lake. The purported demarcation
process has been going on for more than a decade and no
2025:KER:10902
finalisation is in sight in any near future. Though the Taluk Surveyor
had conducted a survey of the property of the 1 st respondents in
these Writ Petitions, no encroachments had been found on the lake.
Discrimination was also alleged as the petitioner Panchayat had
permitted very many landowners in the vicinity to construct
residential buildings and had granted them occupancy certificates.
The 1st respondent in these Writ Petitions alone are being singled
out with oblique motives. They thus sought dismissal of the Writ
Petitions.
15. After hearing the counsel in detail and perusing the
pleadings and documents, it is noted that the primary question that
arises for consideration is whether the orders under challenge
rendered by the Tribunal for Local Self-Government Institutions, are
legally sustainable and whether the impugned orders require any
interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Tribunal while
rendering the said orders had taken note of the fact that the relevant
properties are situated in the vicinity of the Vellayani lake, and has
inter alia directed the petitioner Panchayat to demarcate the
boundaries of the lake so that there is clarity and certainty regarding
2025:KER:10902
the prohibited distance from the lake waters beyond which alone
constructions could be permitted. This leads to the question
regarding the status of the Vellayani lake, the norms governing the
activities on lands lying contiguous to the lake and the prohibited
distance,if any, mandated.
16. Vellayani lake is a freshwater lake. Though it is not
seen included in the list of updated RAMSAR sites from Kerala
which are presently three in number viz., Ashtamudi Wetland,
Sasthamkotta lake and Vembanad Kol Wetland, the report attached
to the letter dated 18.01.2023 bearing No.SWAK/A1/68/2017 issued
by the SWAK states that Vellayani lake has been included in the list
of selected 40 wetlands in the State which are undergoing the
notification process as envisaged under the Wetlands Rules, 2017.
The report also states that the Ministry of Environment Forest and
Climate Change (MoEFCC) has included Vellayani lake from Kerala
among the 100 wetlands put forward for regeneration of wetlands. It
is also relevant to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has vide
interim order dated 08.02.2017 in W.P.(C) No.230 of 2001, directed
that the norms in Rule 4 of the Wet Lands Rules shall be made
2025:KER:10902
applicable to the 2,01,503 wetlands spread across the country. The
office memorandum dated 08.03.2022 bearing No.F.No.W-4/4/2022-
WTL issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate
Change (Wetlands Division), New Delhi in furtherance of the
directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P.(C) No.230 of 2001
states that 2,01,503 wetlands as per the National Wetland Inventory
and Assessment (NIWA), 2011 should be protected as per Rule 4 of
the Wetland Rules, 2017 and that the said protection is irrespective
of the applicability of the notification as per the said Rules. In view of
the said direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the steps taken
in furtherance thereof by the MoEFCC (Wetlands Division) as well as
by the SWAK, the Vellayani freshwater lake has to be treated as a
wetland to which the Wetlands Rules, 2017 is applicable.
Consequently, any construction that could be carried out along the
lands contiguous to the lake will have to be carried out strictly as per
the mandates of the said Rules.
17. The Wetland Rules, 2017 had been evolved taking
note of the fact that wetlands are vital parts of the hydrological cycle.
They are highly productive ecosystems that support rich biodiversity
2025:KER:10902
and provide a wide range of ecosystem services such as water
storage, water purification, flood mitigation, erosion control, aquifer
recharge, microclimate regulation, and aesthetic enhancement of
landscapes, while simultaneously supporting many significant
recreational, social, and cultural activities. Wetlands are part of our
rich cultural heritage and many wetlands are threatened by
reclamation and degradation through drainage and landfill, pollution
(discharge of domestic and industrial effluents, disposal of solid
wastes), hydrological alteration (water withdrawal and changes in
inflow and outflow), over-exploitation of their natural resources
resulting in loss of biodiversity and disruption in ecosystem services
amply provided by the wetlands. The Wetland Rules, 2017
envisages a comprehensive framework to ensure conservation and
management of wetlands. Rule 4 of the Wetland Rules, 2017 reads
as follows:
Restrictions of activities in wetlands.--
(1) The wetlands shall be conserved and managed
in accordance with the principle of 'wise use' as
determined by the Wetlands Authority.
(2) The following activities shall be prohibited within
the wetlands, namely,- (i) conversion for non-
wetland uses including encroachment of any kind;
(ii) setting up of any industry and expansion of
2025:KER:10902
existing industries;
(iii) manufacture or handling or storage or disposal
of construction and demolition waste covered under
the Construction and Demolition Waste
Management Rules, 2016; hazardous substances
covered under the Manufacture, Storage and Import
of Hazardous Chemical Rules, 1989 or the Rules for
Manufacture, Use, Import, Export and Storage of
Hazardous Micro-organisms Genetically engineered
organisms or cells, 1989 or the Hazardous Wastes
(Management, Handling and Transboundary
Movement) Rules, 2008; electronic waste covered
under the E-Waste (Management) Rules, 2016;
(iv) solid waste dumping;
(v) discharge of untreated wastes and effluents from
industries, cities, towns, villages and other human
settlements;
(vi) any construction of a permanent nature except
for boat jetties within fifty metres from the mean high
flood level observed in the past ten years calculated
from the date of commencement of these rules; and,
(emphasis added)
(vii) poaching.
Provided that the Central Government may consider
proposals from the State Government or Union
Territory Administration for omitting any of the
activities on the recommendation of the Authority.
Thus, the owners of properties situated alongside/ in the vicinity of
the wetlands are bound to comply with the legal mandates as laid
down under Rule 4 and have to abide by norms regarding the user
to which alone such property could be put. Encroachments and any
other activities that would detrimentally impact the wetlands are
prohibited and violations are to be strictly dealt with in accordance
with the law.
18. At the same time, it is trite that citizens' land use
2025:KER:10902
cannot be restrained indefinitely without due process of law. Land
cannot be kept frozen for an inordinate period of time thus depriving
its owners of its fair and legitimate use. The statutory authorities
have a duty to ensure that the framework envisaged in the relevant
Rules is put in place within a reasonable period of time. Though the
reasoning that the concerned authorities are in the process of
evolving norms to regulate the user of the property as it happens to
be situated in the vicinity of an entity in which the community has a
larger stake and interest may have some basis, it cannot be
stretched to levels where the effective beneficial use of the property
is denied to its owner for more than a decade. Permits and
applications for the beneficial use of the land by its owners cannot
be kept in suspended animation inordinately as the same has the
effect of detrimentally impacting the constitutional right to property
under Article 300 A. (See Manubhai Sendhabhai Bharwad and
Another v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and Others
(2023 SCC OnLine SC 63); State of Kerala v. Meera Anil @ Meera
D.C. (W.A.No.2186 of 2015). An inordinate delay in processing
building permit applications/renewal applications for the purported
2025:KER:10902
reason that the process of demarcating and laying down the
boundaries of the wetland and fixing the prohibited distance beyond
which alone constructions could be permitted has not been
completed, hampers the valuable rights of the property owners for
no fault of theirs. Such refusal/delay is unfair, unreasonable and
militate against the arbitrariness facet of Article 14 of the
Constitution. The case of the 1 st respondent in W.P.(C) No.6914 of
2012 is a classic instance of such deprivation notwithstanding the
fact that her property has been clearly demarcated from the
Vellayani lake by a compound wall which had been constructed as
permitted by the petitioner Panchayat, her application for renewal of
a residential building permit which had been filed in accordance with
law within the specified time period as early as 2011 is hanging in
balance for the last more than a decade. That her husband is
engaged in the real-estate business is not a legally sustainable
reason to deprive her of her right to put up a residential building on
her property. It is apparently taking note of such compelling reasons
that verge on denial of constitutional rights that the Tribunal has in
Ext.P12 order (impugned in W.P.(C) No.6914 of 2012) noted as
2025:KER:10902
follows:
"In the present case, the respondents has no case
that the construction of the building of the appellant
will in any way encroach into the Vellayani Lake.
The respondents also has no case that the
boundary of the Vellayani Lake would cross through
the construction site. The only objection to the
renewal of the permit for the respondent as already
noted by me that the constitution site is not beyond
50 metres of the boundary of the Vellayani Lake."
(emphasis added)
The Tribunal had thereafter concluded as follows:
"The 1st respondent is entitled to a renewal of the
permit if there is no other legal impediment since
the application for renewal of the permit was given
within the validity period of the permit."
(emphasis added)
Accordingly, the Tribunal had in the impugned order directed the
petitioner Panchayat thus to:
"...reconsider the application for renewal of the
building permit and grant renewal if there are no
other legal impediments, within a period of one
month from today and intimate the fact to the
appellant and to the this Tribunal".
(emphasis added)
Similarly, in the other two Writ Petitions viz., W.P.(C) No.
28123/2014 and W.P.(C) No.30616 of 2014, the operative portion of
the Tribunal's order under challenge reads as follows:
"So Secretary can be directed to fix the boundary of
the lake abutting the appellant's property with the
help of Taluk Surveyor and thereafter find whether
the construction of the proposed compound wall will
in anyway violate the Rule (vi) of the Wetlands
2025:KER:10902
(Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010 and if
not he can consider the application for the building
permit." (emphasis added)
Thus, the orders impugned in these Writ Petitions show that the
Tribunal while issuing directions to the Panchayat had tempered
them with reasonableness and had only stressed the need to
expeditiously comply with the legal mandates and not to put the
property owners in limbo. The impugned orders had only prodded
the petitioner Panchayat to decide on the pending permit
applications in accordance with law and within a specified time
period. That the relevant legal norms are to be complied with while
considering the applications had been cautiously reiterated by the
Tribunal. To this extent, the orders impugned cannot be termed per
se erroneous, unsustainable or arbitrary.
19. However, the contention of the petitioner Panchayat
that it falls beyond its power, jurisdiction and realm of competence to
measure and demarcate the boundaries of the Vellayani lake, so as
to identify and stipulate the distance of 50 mtrs. from the mean high
flood level of the Vellayani lake observed in the past ten years
from the date of commencement of the Wetland Rules, 2017, as
2025:KER:10902
seen mandated in Rule 4 (iv) of the said Rules is valid and pertinent.
Although the Tribunal had directed the Panchayat to fix the boundary
of the lake with the help of the Taluk Surveyor it is seen that the said
power is specifically vested in the SWAK as per Rule 7 of the
Wetland Rules, 2017 and not in the petitioner Panchayat or the
Taluk Surveyor. Rule 7 reads as follows:
"Delegation of powers and functions to the State
Governments and Union Territory Administrations.--
(1) The concerned Department of the State
Government or Union Territory Administration shall,
within a period of one year from the date of
publication of these rules, prepare a Brief Document
for each of the wetland identified for notification,
providing:--
(a) demarcation of wetland boundary supported by
accurate digital maps with coordinates and validated
by ground truthing;
(b) demarcation of its zone of influence and land
use and land cover thereof indicated in a digital
map;
(c) ecological character description;
(d) account of pre-existing rights and privileges;
(e) list of site-specific activities to be permitted
within the wetland and its zone of influence;
(f) list of site specific activities to be regulated within
the wetland and its zone of influence; and
(g) modalities for enforcement of regulation"
In view of the said stipulation, the SWAK has a duty to complete all
steps towards demarcating the wetland boundaries of each of the
wetlands duly identified within the State. The very applicability of the
said norm based on High tide flood level to the Vellayani lake is a
2025:KER:10902
subject that would fall squarely within the competence of SWAK and
not within the powers of the petitioner Panchayat to lay down. It is
only after the SWAK has thus demarcated the wetland boundary,
that the concerned local self-government body or the Taluk surveyor
could, basing on the same measure out the prohibited distance and
proceed to consider and act upon the building permit applications
preferred by the property owners in the vicinity of the relevant
wetland. It is also relevant to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has while rendering interim order dated 11.12.2024 in W.P.(C)
No.304 of 2018 inter alia directed as follows:
"It is clear now that the ground truthing and the
demarcation of wetland boundary is the next step,
which is to be undertaken by each of the State/UT
Wetland Authorities in coordination with concerned
nodal Department as provided under the Rules. It is
a Statutory function which has been assigned to
them under the Rules. We, therefore, direct each of
the State/UT Wetland Authorities to complete
ground truthing as well as the demarcation of
wetland boundaries of each of the Wetland which
have been identified for their State by Space
Application Center Atlas (SAC Atlas), 2021. For
easy accessibility of this, each of the State/UT
Wetland Authorities shall complete this work as
expeditiously as possible, but definitely within a
period of three months from today."
SWAK is thus duty-bound to comply with the said direction issued by
2025:KER:10902
the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It follows that, the direction issued by
the Tribunal to the petitioner Panchayat in the impugned orders will
have to await SWAK's compliance of the legal mandates/duties.
20. Proximity to wetlands is not by itself a sufficient
justification to totally deny the beneficial use of land to its respective
owners. The petitioner Panchayat and the respondent statutory
authorities have a duty to ensure that the larger public interest in
maintaining and protecting the wetlands is carried out strictly in
accordance with the law and without jeopardising the legally
permitted and reasonable uses to which the land in its vicinity could
be put to by its lawful owners. The Wetland Rules, 2017 and similar
norms have been evolved, so as to ensure that there is the least
friction and waste when it comes to the protection of the environment
vis a vis the upholding of individual rights to property. If the
stipulations regarding time period as specified in these norms, for
instance, the period of one year specified in Rule 7 of the Wetland
Rules, 2017 within which the 'Brief Document' for each of the
wetlands identified for notification is to be prepared by SWAK and
put in the public realm for other stakeholders like the petitioner
2025:KER:10902
Panchayat to act upon, is not scrupulously compiled with, the result
would be disenchantment with environmental protection, violation of
property rights, deprivation of right to life and consequent denial of
justice, all of which does not augur well for achieving the larger goal
of a sustainable environment. I do not hence find any reason to
interfere with the impugned orders of the Tribunal for Local Self-
Government Institutions though, I deem it relevant to factor in the
circumstance that the formal notification process of all Wetlands in
the State, especially the Vellayani lake has not yet been completed
and that the SWAK is apparently still in the process of collecting and
collating the details for the 'Brief document' as envisaged in Rule 7
of the Wetland Rules, 2017.
21. In view of the above, it is deemed fit and proper to
dispose of these Writ Petitions with the following directions:
(a) SWAK, the 4th additional respondent in W.P.(C) No.30616 of
2014, shall, in strict compliance with the mandates of law and
as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, take steps to
expeditiously complete ground-truthing and the demarcation of
wetland boundaries of the Vellayani lake.
2025:KER:10902
(b) SWAK shall also comply with the mandates of Rule 7 of the
Wetland Rules, 2017, to the extent relevant to Vellayani lake
expeditiously and pass on the relevant information as well as
the 'Brief Document' as envisaged in the said Rule, to the
petitioner Panchayat for being put to use in accordance with
the law.
(c) Petitioner Panchayat shall upon receipt of relevant
information from the SWAK utilise the same in accordance with
law for processing the relevant applications preferred by the 1 st
respondents in these W.P.(C)s and dispose of their
applications expeditiously at any rate within one month of
such receipt of information from SWAK;
(d) Till such consideration and disposal could be carried out as
directed in (c) herein above, the impugned orders of the
Tribunal in these W.P.(C)s shall be kept in abeyance.
(e) The above directions will be subject to orders rendered/ to be
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in pending litigations
including W.P.(C) No.230 of 2001, W.P.(C) No.304 of 2018
and other connected cases.
2025:KER:10902
Writ Petitions are disposed of as above. All interlocutory
applications stand closed.
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
csl
2025:KER:10902
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28123/2014
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXT.P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION AND SITE PLAN
SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT
EXT.P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE DECISION NO.V (II) DATED
28/1/2011 OF THE PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE
EXT.P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO.A3/857/2013-14 DATED
26/2/2014.
EXT.P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL
NO.359/2014 OF THE LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
INSTITUTION, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM.
EXT.P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE
PETITION IN APPEAL NO.359/2014.
EXT.P6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/6/2011 IN
APPEAL NO.158/2011 OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL
SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM.
EXT.P7 PHOTOCOPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING CHAIRED
BY MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY KOVALAM
DATED 19/7/2011.
EXT.P8 PHOTOCOPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED
15/5/2014 OF THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAYATH
EXT.P9 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20/10/2014 ISSUED
BY THE SECRETARY OF THE DISTRICT PANCHAYATH TO
THE PETITIONER
EXT.P10 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.8.2014 IN
APPEAL NO.359/2014 OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL
SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXT.P11 PHOTOCOPY OF I.A.NO.2451/2014 IN APPEAL
2025:KER:10902
NO.359/2014 OF THE TRIBUNAL.
EXT.P12 PHOTOCOPY OF NOTICE DATED 05.11.2014 IN
I.A.NO.2451/2014 IN APPEAL NO.359/2014 OF THE
HON'BLE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
INSTITUTIONS.
TRUE COPY OF THE STATUS REPORT PROVIDED BY THE
ANNEXURE I
MEMBER SECRETARY, STATE WETLAND AUTHORITY,
KERALA
2025:KER:10902
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30616/2014
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1- PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION DT. 07-12-
2013 SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2- PHOTOCOPY OF THE DECISION NO. V(II)
DATED 28-01-2011 OF THE PANCHAYATH
COMMITTEE.
EXHIBIT P3- PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER NO. A3/434/2014
DATED 07-02-2014.
EXHIBIT P4- PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL
NO. 192/2014 OF THE LOCAL SELF
GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P5- PHOTOCOPY WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY
THE PETITIONER IN APPEAL NO. 192/2014.
EXHIBIT P6- PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18-06-2011
IN APPEAL NO. 158/2011 OF THE TRIBUNAL
FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNKMENT INSTITUTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P7- PHOTOCOPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING
CHAIRED BY MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY KOVALAM DT. 19-07-2011.
EXHIBIT P8- PHOTOCOPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING
DT. 15-05-2014 OF DISTRICT PANCHAYATH.
EXHIBIT P9- PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20-10-
2014 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE
DISTRICT PANCHAYATH TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P10- PHOTOCOPY OF HTE ORDER DATED 03-09-2014
IN APPEAL NO. 192/2014 OF THE TRIBUNAL
FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION,
2025:KER:10902
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P11- THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE I.A.NO. 2450/2014
IN APPEAL NO. 192/2014 OF LOCAL SELF
DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P12- THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 05-
11-2014 ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL
FOR LOCAL SELF DEPARTMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ANNEXURE I A TRUE COPY OF THE STATUS REPORT
PROVIDED BY THE MEMBER SECRETARY, STATE
WETLAND AUTHORITY, KERALA
2025:KER:10902
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6914/2012
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE BUILDING PLAN
SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT
NO.98/2008/-2009 ISSUED BY THE
PANCHAYATH
EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BY THE RESPONDENT FOR RENEWAL OF
LICENSE
EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE DECISION NO.V(II)
DATED 28.1.2011 OF THE PANCHAYATH
COMMITTEE.
EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.AE/4519/2011
DATED 14.7.2011 IS PRODUCED.
EXHIBIT P6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL
NO.671/2011 OF THE LOCAL SELF
GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P7 PHOTOCOPY WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY
THE PETITION IN APPEAL NO.671/2011.
EXHIBIT P8 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.6.2011
IN APPEAL NO.158/2011 OF THE TRIBUNAL
FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P9 PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE
ORDER DATED 5.1.2011 OF THE HON'BLE
OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
INSTITUTION
2025:KER:10902
EXHIBIT P10 COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING
DATED 19.7.2011
EXHIBIT P11 PHOTOGRAPHY OF VELLAYANI LAKE
EXHIBIT P12 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.2.2012
IN APPEAL NO.671/2011 OF THE TRIBUNAL
FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R1(a) COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE (NO.127) OF
MINUTES BOOK OF THE PETITIONER DATED
28.1.2011 REGARDING EXT.P4 DECISION.
EXHIBIT R1(b) COPY OF ORDER NO.A6-728/2011 DATED
28.6.2011 OF THE PETITIONER FOR
DEMOLITION OF COMPOUND WALL.
EXHIBIT R1(c) PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE LIE OF THE PLOT
INDICATING TH NATURE OF LAND EXISTING
BUILDING AND GROWN UP TREES ETC.
EXHIBIT R1(d) COPY OF DECISION NO.1 OF THE PETITIONER
DATED 3.3.2012
EXHIBIT R1(e) COPY OF THE GOVT.LETTER DATED 14.3.2012
TO THE PETITIONER DIRECTING COMPLIANCE
WITH EXT.912 OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LSGI
Ext. R1(f) Photographs of Ext P2 house site
Ext. R1(g) True copy of Wetland Authority of
Kerala(SWAK)notified data dt.23.10.2020
Ext. R1(h) Photocopy of the relevant CRZ Report
dated 28/03/2011
ANNEXURE I A TRUE COPY OF THE STATUS REPORT
PROVIDED BY THE MEMBER SECRETARY, STATE
WETLAND AUTHORITY, KERALA
