IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2010 / 14TH JYAISTHA 1932 WA.No. 1612 of 2009 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.16795/2009 Dated 18/06/2009 & ORDER IN RP NO.616/2009 DATED 7.7.2009 .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER: --------------------------- ALPHONSA STREEDER, W/O.MARTIN STREEDER MANGALATH HOUSE, P.O.KOONAMMAVU, VALLUVALLI MURI, KOTUVALLI VILLAGE, PARAVOOR TALUK, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SMT.ROSY VARGHESE. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------- PALLIPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PALLIPPURAM, CHERAI-683 614. BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.T.A.SHAJI THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.N.Ravindran, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A.No.1612 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Ravindran, J. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.16795 of 2009 is the appellant in this writ appeal. 2. The appellant constructed four single storeyed cottages in a parcel of land belonging to her. After the construction was over, she moved the respondent Panchayat to number the building. That application was rejected by Ext.P2 order dated 6.6.2009 stating that the construction is in violation of the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) notification. The writ petition was thereupon filed challenging Ext.P2 and seeking a direction to the respondent Panchayat to number the building if the construction is in accordance with the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999. 3. By judgment delivered on 18th June, 2009, the W.A.No.1612 of 2009 - 2 - learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition with a direction that the appellant may move the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority for demarcating the limit of 200 metres from the high tide line in relation to her property and depending on the demarcation made by the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority the appellant may seek revocation of Ext.P2. It was also directed that if such an application is filed it shall be considered on the merits. The appellant thereafter filed R.P.No.616 of 2009 seeking a review of the said judgment. The appellant contended that besides the directions issued in the judgment the Panchayat should have also been directed to number the building. By order passed on 7th July, 2009 the review petition was dismissed. Hence this writ appeal. 4. We heard Sri.P.B.Sahasranaman, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.T.A.Shaji, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Panchayat. We have also gone through the pleadings and materials on record. The W.A.No.1612 of 2009 - 3 - learned counsel on both sides are in agreement that after the decision of this Court in Parthan v. Nayarambalam Grama Panchayat (2006 (3) KLT 734), the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority has already moved the Government of India seeking modification of the CRZ notification in so far as it relates to the Vypeen group of islands. It is also submitted that the Government of India is yet to take a final decision in the matter. 5. We have gone through the decision of this Court in Parthan v. Nayarambalam Grama Panchayat (2006 (3) KLT 734). In our opinion, in view of the fact that as the Government of India is seised of the matter, pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in another writ petition, it would not be necessary for this Court to adjudicate on the questions raised in the writ petition. In our view, as the construction of the building is over and pursuant to the interim order passed in this writ appeal, the buildings have been provisionally numbered and as the W.A.No.1612 of 2009 - 4 - Government of India has already been moved for amendment of the CRZ notification, the writ appeal can be disposed of with a direction to maintain the status quo as on today till the Government of India issues a revised CRZ notification. We accordingly dispose of the writ appeal with the following directions: (i) The appellant shall not effect any further construction in the property in dispute till the Government of India takes a decision in the matter. (ii) The respondent shall not take any steps to demolish the buildings already constructed by the appellant till the Government of India takes a decision in the matter. The right of the appellant to have the construction of the buildings regularised and the buildings numbered on a regular basis would be subject to the decision taken by the Government of India regarding the proposed amendment to the CRZ notification. (iii) After the revised notification, if any, is issued by W.A.No.1612 of 2009 - 5 - the Government of India amending the existing CRZ notification, it will be open to the appellant to move the respondent Panchayat for regularising the construction and for numbering the building, if it does not offend the amended notification. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.N.Ravindran, Judge vns