A recent legal case has shed light on violations related to wetland conservation, highlighting the importance of adhering to environmental protection laws. The court’s in-depth legal analysis discussed the prohibition on wetland reclamation under specific laws, emphasizing the need for compliance with regulations. Stay tuned to learn more about the legal intricacies of wetland conservation in this insightful case summary.
Facts
- NGT order dated 06.11.2019 refers to another order in O.A. No. 71 of 2019 regarding EIA study
- No separate order needed in the present matter as issues can be addressed in the EIA study
- District Collector deemed unable to take action under specific sections of the Act of 2008
- Land acquisition notifications from 2003 show the disputed lands were paddy/converted paddy/dry land, not wetland as claimed
- Execution Application No. 39 of 2019 pertains to violations in 19.73 acres of Veli-Akkulam Wetland
- Clearance given for 9.75 acres of Veli-Akkulam Wetland, District Collector tasked to take appropriate action within one month
- Appellant contends the order referenced a different matter related to Dragon Stone Reality Private Limited environmental clearance
Also Read: Legal Analysis on Physical Ability in Rape Case
Arguments
- The petitioner approached the Court alleging that the District Collector did not follow the order dated 19.12.2018, necessitating a remand of the matter for a fresh hearing.
- The State of Kerala argued that the NGT order and the Collector’s order were not challenged by the petitioner, making the execution application filed by the petitioner irrelevant.
- The State Wetland Authority identified 40 wetlands in Kerala but did not include the land in question in this case as a wetland.
- The petitioner missed the opportunity to appeal earlier as construction had already commenced with proper permissions, including under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.
- The State’s actions were deemed illegal due to the prohibition on wetland reclamation under the Wetlands Rules, 2010.
Also Read: Analysis of Transfer of Winding Up Proceedings to NCLT
Analysis
- Challenges made within 8 weeks from today will not be dismissed for delay
- Delay will not be sole ground for dismissal of the petitioner’s challenge
Also Read: Judicial Discretion in Contractual Interpretation
Case Title: THOMAS LAWRENCE Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA (2020 INSC 617)
Case Number: C.A. No.-002535 / 2020
