The Kerala High Court has changed its order regarding constructions for Lakshadweep’s Tent City. This order, which significantly affects the rights of the parties involved, can be contested under Section 5(I) of the Kerala High Court Act.
The Kerala High Court has decided that an order significantly affecting the rights of the parties, made after considering opposing arguments, can be challenged in a writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act. The appeals were based on interim orders from a Single Judge. This judge had maintained the status quo on constructions for the Tent City on Thinnakkara Island and Bengaram Islands in Lakshadweep. The Division Bench, consisting of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S., rejected the objection regarding the appeal’s validity, stating, “…we find that the impugned orders of the learned Single Judge cannot be treated as an ad interim order or an order merely of a procedural nature. Such an order substantially touching upon the rights of the parties, which is one passed after taking note of the rival contentions, is an order which can be challenged in a writ appeal filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act.”
The appellant was represented by Standing Counsel R.V. Sreejith. The Writ Petition was filed by the first respondent, who sought a writ of certiorari to annul the communication from the District Collector to the third appellant, the Director of the Department of Tourism Development. This communication allocated 30,000 sq.m. of land (on the southern side of Thinnakkara) to the Department of Tourism for developing, operating, maintaining, and managing the Tent City at Thinnakkara and Bengaram Islands. The petitioner also requested a declaration that the first appellant, the Union Territory of Lakshadweep Administration, had no rights over the accreted land given to the third appellant.
When the writ petitions were presented for admission, the Single Judge determined that the case needed a thorough hearing. The appellants were instructed to submit a statement and were told to keep the current situation unchanged regarding the added land next to the petitioner’s registered property on Thinnakkara Island and Bengaram Island, extending towards the sea on the eastern side. Dissatisfied with this, the appellants contested these Orders by referencing Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958. The Senior Counsel for the first respondent-writ petitioner questioned whether the writ appeal was valid under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, concerning a temporary order from the Single Judge.
Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act addresses appeals from the decisions of a Single Judge. According to Section 5(i), an appeal can be made to a two-Judge Bench from a Single Judge’s judgment or order in original jurisdiction. The Bench concluded that an order significantly affecting the rights of the parties, made after considering opposing arguments, is eligible for challenge in a writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act. Despite differing views on the validity of the writ petitions, the Bench noted that, given the legal remedy available under Regulations 11(4) and 78 of the Laccadive, Minicoy, and Amindivi Islands Land Revenue and Tenancy Regulations, it was up to the parties to present their arguments before the Single Judge.
In this situation, the temporary relief requested in the writ petitions was to halt the actions of the second appellant, the District Collector, directed to the Director of the Department of Tourism Development, along with any subsequent actions related to the allocation of accreted land to the Department of Tourism for developing, operating, maintaining, and managing the Tent City at Thinnakkara Island/Bengaram Island. After reviewing some photos of the temporary structures being built for the Tent City at these islands, the Bench noted that the constructions were mainly temporary tents for tourist accommodation.
“The tent construction is almost finished. A significant amount has already been invested in these temporary structures to boost tourism,” the Bench stated, adding, “Given these circumstances, we see no reason to uphold the interim order of status quo issued by the learned Single Judge in both writ petitions. This order is modified to indicate that any constructions for the Tent City at Thinnakkara Island and Bengaram Island on the accreted land in front of the properties covered by Exts.P2, P2(a), and P2(b) rough pattas in W.P.(C)No.38200 of 2024 and Ext.P1(a) rough patta in W.P.(C)No.38174 of 2024 will depend on the outcome of the writ petitions.”
Cause Title: Union Territory of Lakshadweep v. Salmikoya K. [Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:83954] Appearance:
Appellant: Standing Counsel R.V.Sreejith
