Petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:
“i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the 1st respondent to take immediate actions to protect the river banks on the Kollam - Kottappuram water way which runs along the petitioners' properties, by constructing retaining walls.
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibits P2 and P3 before proceeding further with the dredging activities in the area.
Iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the respondents 1 and to conduct a study regarding the impact of the dredging in the area and to take remedial measures before proceeding further with the ongoing work.
iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the 1st and 2nd respondent to utilise the sand removed from the river bed for strengthening the river banks so as to protect the same.
v) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the respondents 1 and to compensate the petitioners for the loss suffered by them on account of the dredging of the river bed and other activities going on in the Kollam- Kottappuram Water Way running along the boundaries of their properties.”
2. The main contention of the petitioners is that they, being the residents of Trikkunnappuzha Grama Panchayath residing in the banks of the Kollam-Kottappuram National Water Way being constructed by respondents 1 and 3, are threatened by substantial erosion of soil on the banks of the river, as a result of which destruction is caused to their residential buildings and the river banks as well. It is contended that the respondents are bound to construct appropriate retention walls to avoid such erosion and damage to the property.
3. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 and 3. 3rd respondent is a Contractor who had undertaken the dredging work. 1st respondent is the Inland Water Ways Authority who had permitted dredging to be carried out. Both respondents dispute any obligation to construct retention wall, as claimed. They also dispute the fact that any loss or damage to the property has been caused on account of dredging operation. According to them, erosion is a long drawn process. It is also disputed that erosion has been caused subsequent to dredging operation. Therefore, they dispute the liability to undertake construction of retention wall, as claimed by the petitioners.
4. Having regard to the fact that claim made by the petitioners have been disputed by respondents 1 and 3, I do not think that this Court can enter into a finding as to whether any erosion or damage to the property had been caused on account of dredging operation. Remedy of the petitioners is to approach Civil court claiming appropriate damages and after establishing the fact that damage to their property had occurred on account of dredging operation.
In the result, this writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach Civil court for appropriate reliefs.
(sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr