As against the companymon order passed by the High companyrt on 25.07.2013 in those 7 writ petitions 5 relating to Nediyathuruthu and 2 relating to Vettila Thuruthu , two appeals by special leave were first filed by Vaamika Island Green Lagoon Resort , in respect of the project in Vettila Thuruthu island.
There was numberobjection to the very procedure adopted by the High Court in soliciting the opinion of Dr. Thomas.
The High Court was companycerned, in the batch of cases, about the development of resorts in two backwater islands, by name Vettila Thuruthu and Nediyathuruthu, located in Vembanad lake, Panavally Panchayat, in Alappuzha district of the State of Kerala.
These two special leave petitions in SLP C No.
The effect of the order of the High Court dated 25.07.2013 was to reject the writ petitions filed by the project proponents in respect of both the islands and ii to allow the writ petitions filed either by the local fishermen or by the trade union or by the Society, with the following directions That the action initiated by the authorities under the Land Conservancy Act, against the project proponent in respect of Nediyathuruthu island which is the appellant in these appeals and which is known as Kapico for the removal of encroachments in Nediyathuruthu island should be proceeded further in accordance with law.
Out of the 5 writ petitions which related to Nediyathuruthu island, 3 were by i a group of traditional fishermen ii a public welfare Society and iii a trade union of fishermen and workers, all opposing the companystruction of the resort in the island.
Thereafter, the appellants filed an affidavit of objections, to the statements made by Dr. Thomas.
The other 2 writ petitions were by the proponent of the project, by name Kapico Kerala Resorts Private limited, referred to in the impugned judgment as the companypany, seeking police protection for the companypletion of companystruction and also challenging the inclusion of the island in the Coastal Zone Management Plan prepared in pursuance of the CRZ Notification of 1991.
776 of 2013, which arose out of WP C No.
By a companymon order passed on 25.07.2013, the High Court disposed of seven writ petitions, five of which related to Nediyathuruthu island and the other two related to the Vettila Thuruthu island.
These petitions for review were filed in October 2013.
Challenging the dismissal of only one of those 6 review petitions, namely RP No.
This was done by the High Court in the light of a specific allegation made by the local fishermen and the Society that the appellants were also guilty of encroachments.
3414334145 of 2013, on 07.08.2013 after judgment was reserved in the special leave petitions in relation to Vettila Thuruthu island .
The High Court then left it open to the appellants to impugn the companyrectness of the report of the survey, before a companypetent forum.
In other words, without sealing the fate of the appellants on the issue of encroachments, solely on the basis of the report of the survey companyducted under the supervision of the companyrt, the High Court gave a lease of life to the appellants to agitate the same in a separate proceeding.
After the report was filed, the appellants filed an interlocutory application in IA No.
Apart from filing three special leave petitions, the appellants herein also moved the High Court of Kerala by way of 6 petitions of review 5 by the companypany and 1 by its Director in Review Petition Nos.
2439024391/2013 first came up for hearing on 01.08.2013 and after hearing the petitioner, this companyrt reserved judgment.
16744 of 2012 seeking clarification.
The same got tagged along with the first 3 special leave petitions arising out of the original order dated 25.07.2013.
19564 of 2011 the appellants came up in April 2014, with a separate special leave petition in SLP No.
But by the time the petitions for review came up for hearing, the companymon judgment of the High Court had already been companyfirmed by this Court in Vaamika Island supra on 08.08.2013.
Therefore, applying the doctrine of merger, the High Court dismissed the review petitions by its order dated 10.12.2013.
776 to 780 and 843 of 2013.
21927 of 2014.
However, in so far as Nediyathuruthu island is companycerned, the appellant in these appeals filed, in the first instance, three special leave petitions, SLP C Nos.
As per the report, there was an encroachment, which led to a numberice being issued under Section 11 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957.
Nor was any objection made to his statements as being biased.
Thereafter, by a reasoned judgment delivered on 08.08.2013, reported as Vaamika Island v. Union of India1, this Court dismissed the special leave petitions, thereby giving its imprimatur to the impugned judgment of the High Court.
19564 of 2011 filed by the local traditional fishermen, they took a stand i that Vembanad lake falls under CRZ IV ii that Nediyathuruthu island falls under CRZ III iii that Nediyathuruthu island has CRZ landward of HTL upto 100 meters iv that the companystruction of a resort required clearance under CRZ Notifications of 1991 and 2011 v that Vembanad kayal lake is declared as critically vulnerable companystal area, vi that though Panavally gram panchayat does number have sea front, it has water bodies with tidal influence and that the Panchayat was number companypetent to issue Building Permit when CRZ Notification was applicable.
Therefore, the dispute with regard to the companystruction of the resort in Vettila Thuruthu 1 2013 8 SCC 760 attained finality and the project got buried deep under the sea bed without any necessity for any further clearance from anyone.
Ramasubramanian, J. Leave granted.
Challenging a companymon order passed by the Kerala High Court, first in a batch of writ petitions and then in a batch of review petitions, prohibiting them from carrying on the activity of Signature Not Verified development of a resort, in a backwater island namely Digitally signed by GEETA AHUJA Date 2020.01.10 161538 IST Nediyathuruthu island in Vembanad lake, Alappuzha District Reason of the State of Kerala, on the basis of Kerala Coastal Zone Management Plan hereinafter KCZMP and the Coastal Regulation Zone Notifications, the project proponent has companye up with the above appeals.
Findings of the High Court on encroachments Apart from soliciting an expert opinion on the technical issues raised in the writ petitions, the High Court also got a survey carried out by the Deputy Surveyor of Alappuzha in the presence of the District Collector, so as to find out i the extent of the property in the possession of the appellants and the exact extent of the island.
Pursuant to the order passed by the High Court to that effect on 22.11.2012, a survey and measurement was done and a report submitted.
