Kerala High Court
Kalliyoor Grama Panchayath vs Sherin Hafees 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:
WP (C) No. 6914 of 2012
4. The 1st respondent in W.P.(C) No.6914 of 2012 had filed an application seeking a building permit for residential purposes WP(C)NO.6914/2012 & conn. 7 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 WP(C)NO.6914/2012 & conn. 8 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.
WP (C) No. 28123 of 2014
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 WP(C)NO.6914/2012 & conn. 9 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.
WP (C) No.30616 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- WP(C)NO.6914/2012 & conn. 10
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 WP(C)NO.6914/2012 & conn. 11 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 WP(C)NO.6914/2012 & conn. 12 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 WP(C)NO.6914/2012 & conn. 13 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 WP(C)NO.6914/2012 & conn. 14 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 & WP(C)NO.6914/2012 & conn. 15 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 WP(C)NO.6914/2012 & conn. 16 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 WP(C)NO.6914/2012 & conn. 17 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 WP(C)NO.6914/2012 & conn. 18 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 WP(C)NO.6914/2012 & conn. 19 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 WP(C)NO.6914/2012 & conn. 20 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 WP(C)NO.6914/2012 & conn. 21 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 WP(C)NO.6914/2012 & conn. 22 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 WP(C)NO.6914/2012 & conn. 23 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 WP(C)NO.6914/2012 & conn. 24 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 WP(C)NO.6914/2012 & conn. 25 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 WP(C)NO.6914/2012 & conn. 26 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 WP(C)NO.6914/2012 & conn. 27 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 WP(C)NO.6914/2012 & conn. 28 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 WP(C)NO.6914/2012 & conn. 29 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 WP(C)NO.6914/2012 & conn. 30 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 WP(C)NO.6914/2012 & conn. 31 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 WP(C)NO.6914/2012 & conn. 32 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 WP(C)NO.6914/2012 & conn. 33 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 WP(C)NO.6914/2012 & conn. 34 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 WP(C)NO.6914/2012 & conn. 35 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 WP(C)NO.6914/2012 & conn. 36 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 WP(C)NO.6914/2012 & conn. 37 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 WP(C)NO.6914/2012 & conn. 38 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.WP(C)NO.6914/2012 & conn. 39
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.
WP(C)NO.6914/2012 & conn. 40
2025:KER:10902 Writ Petitions are disposed of as above. All interlocutory applications stand closed.
SYAM KUMAR V.M. JUDGE csl WP(C)NO.6914/2012 & conn. 41 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 WP(C)NO.6914/2012 & conn. 42 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 WP(C)NO.6914/2012 & conn. 43 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, WP(C)NO.6914/2012 & conn. 44 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
WP(C)NO.6914/2012 & conn. 45
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
WP(C)NO.6914/2012 & conn. 46
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