Kerala High Court Lifts Stay On Lakshadweep Tourism Dept's 'Tent City' But Constructions Subject To Verdict In Property Dispute
Manju Elsa Isac
13 Nov 2024 2:03 PM IST
The Kerala High Court has removed stay on further construction in connection with the development of Tent City in Thinnakkara and Bangaram islands of Lakshadweep.
A Single-Bench Judge had earlier, while dealing with challenge to assignment of the concerned properties to the Tourism Department, stopped the construction by ordering to maintain status quo.
The Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. after perusing the photos produced by the Additional Solicitor General of India saw that the constructions in question were temporary, mainly tent to accommodate tourists. The Court also noted that a substantial amount has been spent on the construction for promoting tourism. It added that the constructions shall be subject to the final decision made by the Court in deciding the validity of allocating the land to Tourism Department.
The District Collector had allotted 30,000 sq.m. of land in Thinnakkara Island to Tourism Department. This was challenged before the Single Bench saying that his father was the holder of the rough patta of the concerned land. Likewise, another person challenged the allotment of 12,640 sq.m. of land to Department of Tourism in Bengaram Island claiming that his father was the holder of rough patta of the land.
After hearing preliminary arguments with reference to the provisions in Laacadive, Minicoy and Aminidivi Islands Land Revenue and Tenancy Regulations and the law laid down in Kasimkoya Biyyammabiyoda v Union of India (2020), the Single Bench decided that the matter requires detailed hearing. At this point, the Single Judge passed an order to maintain status quo. This order was appealed by the Union Territory of Lakshadweep.
Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act says that an order of the Single Bench can be appealed before the Division Bench. The High Court in K. S. Das v State of Kerala (1992) held that the orders include orders that substantially affect or touch upon the substantial rights or liabilities of parties or are matters of moment and cause substantial prejudice to the parties. The Court however said in that judgment that ad-interim orders in force pending the miscellaneous petition and orders merely of a procedure nature cannot be appealed under Section 5(i) of the Act.
The Court in the instant case held that the order in question is not an ad interim order or one merely of a procedural nature. The Court said that the order substantially touches upon the rights of the parties.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.
Case No: WA 1780 of 2024
Case Title: Union Territory of Lakshadweep and Othes v Salimkoya K,. and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 713
