IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2009 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 13632 of 2009(Y) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. LOKANATHAN M.K., S/O.KUMARAN, NALUPURACKAL HOUSE, ARIYANNUR P.O., KANDANISSERY, TRICHUR. 2. SURAJ APPUNNI, S/O.APPUNNY, KOTTUPPARAMBIL HOUSE, ARIYANNUR P.O., KANDANISSERY, TRICHUR. BY ADV. MR.P.K.ANIL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. GURUVAYOOR DEVASWAM, REP. BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYOOR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRICHUR. 4. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TRICHUR. 5. SECRETARY, KANDANISSERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KANDANISSERY, TRICHUR. R1 BY MR.V.KRISHNA MENON, S.C, R2 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. V. MANU, R5 BY ADV. MR.P.RAMACHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/12/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.13632/2009-Y: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 1, 3 TO 5 BY THE NEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONERS DTD. 28/04/2009. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE TENDER NOTICE DTD. 28/03/2009. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORT MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DTD. 13/05/09. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT: EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. D1-6196/09 DTD. 06/05/2009 OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.13632 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT 1.Two petitioners, the first of whom states that he has 50 cents of land lying adjacent to a land belonging to the first respondent Guruvayoor Devaswom, challenge the action of the Guruvayoor Devaswom in what the petitioners call as violation of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. The specific plea is that the ecological system of the entire area would be harmed and that the paddy fields have been dug. The petitioners hold out Ext.P2 produced along with the reply affidavit as a tender notice. 2.On 15.5.2009, this Court had required the Guruvayoor Devaswom to state whether it had obtained sanction to remove earth from the property as mentioned in the writ petition. Along with the counter affidavit, the Guruvayoor Devaswom produced Ext.R1(a) sanction of the Revenue Divisional Officer. WPC.13632/09 2 Therefore, on 6.11.2009, it was directed that the RDO, Thrissur will conduct a site inspection and have an affidavit filed, stating as to whether excavation of clay has been strictly in conformity with Ext.R1(a) and whether any land in excess of what is sanctioned by the said order of the RDO has been subjected to excavation. The RDO, Thrissur has filed a report, dated 28.11.2009, explicitly stating that the pond is being constructed in terms of the permission contained as per Ext.R1(a) and on verification, it is seen that no other land has been subjected to excavation in excess of that order and the extension order. The report categorically states that the excavation is conducted only up to 15 metres length in Sy Nos.778 and 779 of the Kandanassery village, though sanction was to remove soil up to a length of 33.8 metres. The RDO further specifically states that the land in question was acquired land under the land acquisition procedure for providing water supply scheme for Guruvayoor Devaswom and the said project was proposed on the basis of feasibility report WPC.13632/09 3 submitted by the Centre for Water Resources Development and Management, Calicut. 3.When the aforesaid report is placed on record, learned counsel for the petitioners stated, as a pure question of law, the petitioners would argue that the action of issuing a tender notice like Ext.P2 would be in violation of Section 11(2) of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act which states that any exchange, sale or mortgage and any lease of any immovable property belonging to or given or endowed for the purpose of the Devaswom shall be null and void unless it is sanctioned by the Commissioner as being necessary or beneficial to Devaswom. The argument advanced is that the Devaswom Commissioner has not sanctioned the tender as necessary or beneficial to the Devaswom. Nothing much needs to be said to repel this argument. This is firstly because the Devaswom is not entering into any transaction of exchange, sale or lease of immovable property belonging to it. It is only carrying out the removal of clay to enable the making of a pond for the water WPC.13632/09 4 supply project. The Devaswom has also, in the counter affidavit, said that the action has been confirmed by the Devaswom Commissioner. Not only that, the project is meant for the purpose of the Devaswom and it is not a transaction of immovable property. The said argument, therefore, fails notwithstanding the fact that there is no pleadings on facts on that point. 4.With the report of the RDO placed on record, the facts that emerge are that the Devaswom had obtained the land in land acquisition proceedings for the purpose of a water supply project cleared by CWRDM and the writ petitioners, by obtaining the interim order, have delayed a project of water supply, an abundant requirement of the Guruvayoor Devaswom. The plea of the petitioners regarding the alleged ecological imbalance stand disproved by the RDO, by his report, which categorically shows that clearance was given on the basis of the views of the CWRDM, a pioneer institute, the WPC.13632/09 5 opinion of which is relied on by different authorities, including by this Court. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition fails. The petitioners are liable to be mulcted with costs. The writ petition was filed in May, 2009 and the project of the Guruvayoor Devaswom was dragged on under the interim orders. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed with costs payable by the petitioners to the first respondent, fixed at Rs.1,00,000/-. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.11/12.