A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, headed by Acting Chief Justice Antony Dominic, on Tuesday recused itself from hearing a public interest writ petition seeking action against Transport Minister Thomas Chandy and others under the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act and Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act for allegedly encroaching on government land and reclaiming backwaters in Alappuzha by a resort owned by Mr. Chandy.
The Bench passed the order when a petition filed by T.N. Mukundan of Thrissur came up for hearing. According to the petitioner, the government and the revenue officials had been indifferent to registering a case against Mr. Chandy and others despite noticing violation of the Land Conservation Act and the Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act by them.
The petitioner pointed out that the Supreme Court, in the Lalithakumari case, had laid down the dictum when a police officer in charge of a police station received an information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence. The officer should necessarily register a crime and investigate the case. The Supreme Court had also held that the reclamation of wetlands or any construction of permanent nature in wetland except boat jetty or any other activities which would have an adverse impact on the ecosystem of the wetland should not be allowed.
The petitioner said that Thomas Chandy, Mary Chandy, Betty Chandy, Toby Chandy, John Mathew, and Biji K. John, all directors of the company which runs the resort, had blatantly violated the laws by encroaching upon government land and constructing a road leading to the resort. Despite the commission of a cognisable offence and the District Collector reporting to the government about the violation of the laws, no action had been initiated against Mr. Chandy and others. This was because Mr. Chandy was a Minister.
The petitioner said that he had brought the violations to the notice of the authorities and sought initiation of cases against Mr. Chandy and the other directors. He pointed out that the encroachment on the government land was an offence under the Land Conservancy Act which was to be tried by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Therefore, once the information was received about commission of a cognizable offence, it was incumbent upon the State government to ensure that prosecution was initiated.
The petitioner sought a directive to evict the encroacher from the land and restore the same to the original position. He also pleaded for declaration that the assignment of the land purchased and converted for non-agricultural purpose, in violation of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules by the resort directors, was null and void.
