Supreme Court allows Real Estate Dowtown Project at Technopark to Resume

Supreme Court allows Real Estate Dowtown Project at Technopark to Resume

The Supreme Court, three judges bench comprising of Justices R.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha, Indira Banerjee, ruled in favour of National Green Tribunal's order and observed, "given the fact that the Collector has passed an order pursuant to the NGT's order dated 19th December, 2018, it is clear that the execution application filed before the NGT has become infructuous."

With this order, the construction works of Downtown project as part ofof Technopark Phase 3 development is set to resume with Supreme Court disposing of the appeal petition on alleged reclamation of the wetland by stating that the petitioner can file appeal in accordance with the law. Thomas Lawrence, the petitioner in the present case had moved towards Supreme Court citing that district collector had not acted in accordance with the order issued by National Green Tribunal (NGT) in 2018.

The NGT received a complaint from Thomas Lawrence regarding mass destruction of wetlands and 10-acre pond inside the Technopark campus. Back in 2018, the tribunal had directed the district collector, Thiruvananthapuram to look into the matter and take appropriate action in accordance with law.

The Supreme Court was approached by the petitioners as it was being alleged that the District Collector has not taken action in accordance with the order dated 19.12.2018 as a result of which it is necessary to setaside the NGT order and remand the matter for de novo hearing.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Kerala pointed out that way back in 2003, these lands were covered by land acquisition notifications showing that they were paddy land/converted paddy land and/or dry land and not wetland as alleged by the petitioner.

According to him, the petitioner has was too late at knocking doors of the NGT, as after huge constructions had already been undertaken after all permissions had been obtained including permissions under Section 10 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. He also pointed out that the appellant not having challenged the order of the NGT dated19.12.2018 or the order of the Collector dated 30.04.2019, the execution application filed in the present case would be infructuous and was therefore rightly dismissed by the NGT vide the impugned order.

The Supreme Court, further added, that it is open to the petitioner to challenge the order of the Collector dated 30.04.2019 in accordance with law. If such challenge is made within a period of 8 weeks from the date of order, the petitioner's challenge will not be dismissed solely on the ground of delay.