Supreme Court clarifies procedure for challenging wetland reclamation orders: Thomas Lawrence vs. State of Kerala (2020)

Date of the Judgment: October 29, 2020
Citation: (2020) INSC 739
Judges: R.F. Nariman, J., Navin Sinha, J., Indira Banerjee, J.

Can a petitioner directly challenge a District Collector’s order regarding wetland reclamation when that order was issued following a directive from the National Green Tribunal (NGT)? The Supreme Court recently addressed this procedural question in a case concerning the alleged illegal reclamation of wetlands in Kerala. The core issue revolved around whether an execution application before the NGT was the correct way to challenge the Collector’s order, or whether a separate challenge was required. The bench comprised Justices R.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha, and Indira Banerjee.

Case Background

The case originated from a complaint by Mr. Thomas Lawrence regarding the alleged destruction of wetlands and ponds within the Technopark region in Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala. The National Green Tribunal (NGT) took cognizance of this complaint and, on December 19, 2018, directed the District Collector of Thiruvananthapuram to investigate the matter and take appropriate action within one month.

Subsequently, on April 30, 2019, the District Collector issued an order stating that the reclamation of 861.2 Ares of land was sanctioned for the third phase development of Technopark under Section 10 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Ordinance 2017. The Collector further stated that necessary safeguards for water conservation were directed to be maintained and no action could be taken under Sections 11 and 13 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.

Aggrieved by the lack of action, Mr. Lawrence filed an execution application before the NGT, arguing that the Collector’s order was not in accordance with the law. The NGT dismissed this application, stating that the issue could be addressed in a related matter concerning environmental clearance for another project.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) initially directed the District Collector to investigate the allegations of wetland destruction. After the District Collector passed an order stating the reclamation was sanctioned, the petitioner filed an execution application before the NGT. The NGT dismissed the execution application, stating that the issue could be addressed in another related matter. This dismissal led to the petitioner approaching the Supreme Court, arguing that the NGT had not addressed the core issue of the legality of the Collector’s order. The petitioner sought to have the NGT order set aside and the matter remanded for a fresh hearing.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:

• The Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008: This Act aims to conserve paddy land and wetlands in Kerala. Section 2(xiv) defines “public purpose”. The District Collector’s order cited Section 10 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Ordinance 2017, which allows for reclamation of land for public purposes.
• The Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010: These rules, particularly Rule 4, place an embargo on the reclamation of wetlands.

The Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 was enacted to protect paddy lands and wetlands in the state. The Act defines “public purpose” under Section 2(xiv), which was invoked by the District Collector to justify the reclamation of land for the Technopark project. The Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010, enacted under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, impose restrictions on the reclamation of wetlands.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant contended that the land in question was a wetland and therefore, construction was illegal under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.
• The appellant relied on reports from local authorities, including the Agricultural Officer and Village Officer, to support the claim that the land was a wetland.
• The appellant argued that the District Collector’s order dated 30.04.2019 was not “in accordance with law” as mentioned in the NGT order dated 19.12.2018, due to the bar on reclamation of wetlands under Rule 4 of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010.
• The appellant cited the Supreme Court’s order in M.K. Balakrishnan v. Union of India (2017) 7 SCC 810(2) to emphasize the embargo on wetland reclamation.
• The appellant argued that the execution application before the NGT was maintainable because the Collector’s order was not in accordance with the law.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The State of Kerala argued that the District Collector’s order dated 30.04.2019 was valid as the reclamation was sanctioned under Section 10 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Ordinance 2017 for a “public purpose,” specifically the development of Technopark.
• The State of Kerala also pointed out that the land acquisition notifications from 2003 indicated that the lands were classified as paddy land/converted paddy land and/or dry land, not wetland.
• Respondents 7 and 9 argued that the Aakulam lake was 3 kms away from the site, and that the Technopark project was already underway with all necessary permissions, including those under Section 10 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.
• The respondents also relied on a response to an RTI application dated 07.10.2020, stating that the State Wetland Authority, Kerala, had not identified the land as a wetland.
• The respondents contended that the appellant’s failure to challenge the NGT order dated 19.12.2018 or the Collector’s order dated 30.04.2019 made the execution application infructuous.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a numbered list. However, the core issue that the court addressed was:

• Whether the execution application filed before the NGT was the correct procedure to challenge the order of the District Collector dated 30.04.2019, which was passed pursuant to the NGT’s order dated 19.12.2018.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court acknowledged the appellant’s reliance on M.K. Balakrishnan v. Union of India (2017) 7 SCC 810(2), but did not use this authority to decide on the merits of the case.
• The Court noted that the District Collector had invoked Section 10 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Ordinance 2017.
• The Court did not provide a detailed analysis on the application of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by procedural considerations rather than the substantive merits of the wetland reclamation. The court emphasized that once the District Collector had passed an order pursuant to the NGT’s direction, the execution application became infructuous. The Court was of the view that the correct course of action was to challenge the Collector’s order separately, if the petitioner was aggrieved by it. The Court’s reasoning focused on the sequence of events and the proper legal channels to address the issue.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the legal procedure (70%), with a lesser emphasis on the factual aspects of the case (30%).

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the execution application filed before the NGT was not the correct procedure to challenge the District Collector’s order dated 30.04.2019. The Court reasoned that once the Collector had passed an order pursuant to the NGT’s direction, the execution application became infructuous. The Court emphasized that the petitioner should have challenged the Collector’s order separately.

The Court stated, “Given the fact that the Collector has passed an order pursuant to the NGT’s order dated 19.12.2018, it is clear that the execution application filed before the NGT has become infructuous.”

The Court further clarified, “It is open to the petitioner to challenge the order of the Collector dated 30.04.2019 in accordance with law.”

The Court also provided a window for the petitioner to file a challenge, stating, “If such challenge is made within a period of 8 weeks from today, the petitioner’s challenge will not be dismissed solely on the ground of delay.”

The Court did not delve into the merits of the case regarding whether the land was indeed a wetland or whether the Collector’s order was legally valid. The focus was solely on the procedural aspect of challenging the Collector’s order.

Key Takeaways

• When a District Collector passes an order pursuant to an NGT directive, that order must be challenged separately and not through an execution application before the NGT.
• The Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of following the correct legal procedure when challenging orders related to environmental matters.
• The judgment provides a clear direction on how to approach such cases in the future, ensuring that the correct legal channels are utilized.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that if the petitioner challenges the order of the District Collector dated 30.04.2019 within a period of 8 weeks from the date of the judgment, the challenge will not be dismissed solely on the ground of delay.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when a District Collector passes an order pursuant to an order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT), the correct procedure for challenging the Collector’s order is to file a separate challenge against that order and not by way of an execution application before the NGT. This clarifies the procedural aspect of challenging such orders and ensures that the correct legal channels are utilized. There is no change in the previous positions of law, but the judgment clarifies the procedure to be followed in such cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Thomas Lawrence vs. The State of Kerala & Ors. clarifies the correct procedure for challenging orders passed by a District Collector pursuant to an order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT). The Court held that an execution application before the NGT is not the appropriate method; instead, a separate challenge must be filed against the Collector’s order. This decision emphasizes the importance of adhering to proper legal procedures in environmental matters and provides a clear roadmap for future cases.

Category

Parent Category: Environmental Law

Child Categories:

• Wetland Conservation
• National Green Tribunal
• Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008
• Section 10, Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Ordinance 2017
• Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010

Parent Category: Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008

Child Categories:

• Section 2(xiv), Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Thomas Lawrence vs. State of Kerala case?
A: The main issue was whether an execution application before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) was the correct way to challenge a District Collector’s order regarding wetland reclamation, when that order was passed pursuant to an order of the NGT.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?
A: The Supreme Court decided that the execution application was not the correct procedure. The petitioner should have challenged the Collector’s order separately.

Q: What should someone do if they disagree with a District Collector’s order that was issued following an NGT directive?
A: They should file a separate challenge against the District Collector’s order, rather than filing an execution application before the NGT.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment?
A: This judgment clarifies the correct legal procedure for challenging such orders, ensuring that the proper channels are followed in environmental matters.

Q: Did the Supreme Court decide whether the land was a wetland?
A: No, the Supreme Court did not decide on the merits of the case. It focused solely on the procedural aspect of challenging the Collector’s order.