KERALA SARPPAKKAVU SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHI v. STATE OF KERALA

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695001 KERALA STATE BIO DIVERSITY BOARD KAILASAM, TC 4/1679, (1), NO.43, BELHAVEN GARDENS, KOWDIAR P.O, TRIVANDRUM- REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695003 DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOTTAYAM, COLLECTORATE P,O, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002 VIJAYAKUMAR S/O VISWANATHAN NAIR, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS NARAKAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEENDOOR,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686601 BY ADVS. NAVEEN T BOBY M SEKHAR SRI NAVEEN-T-SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

08.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 37067 OF 2023 2 JUDGMENT The petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents to “ensure that the serpent grove in the premises of the 4th respondent” (sic) is protected.

2. Noticing the submissions of Sri.N.J.Mathews – learned counsel for the petitioners on 13.11.2023, when this matter was listed, this Court passed an interim order as under: “Petitioners will take out notice before admission by speed post to Respondent No.4. The 2nd respondent will immediately visit the site in question to find out the status of serpent grove and file a report before this Court. Needless to say, status quo with respect to the serpent grove as on today will be ensured to be maintained by the official respondents.”

3. Today, Sri.T.Naveen – learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent – Biodiversity Board, submitted that a report dated

04.12.2023, has been filed by his client, wherein, they have taken the stand that the proposed site is not suitable for being declared as a Biodiversity Heritage Site. He added that he, therefore, leaves it to this Court to issue appropriate orders.

4. For the record, paragraphs 5 and 6 of the afore said report is extracted as under: WP(C) NO. 37067 OF 2023 3 “ 5. The serpent grove is situated within a land admeasuring 1.23 acre, owned by the 4th respondent. The land is identified as being under cultivation, with approximately 80% of the area planted with tapioca and banana. The remaining portion is rubber trees. However, a slight variation in crop distribution is observed in about 4-cent area near the worshiping site. In this section, in addition to rubber trees, four other trees- Maavu (Mangifera Indica L.), Kanjiram (Strychnos nux-vomica L.), Thondi (Sterculia foetida L.), Manchadi (Adenanthera pavonina L.) are also seen. Along the boundaries, few small trees are seen, and Pothos scandens, a climbing species, is found on the trees. The ground vegetation in the specified 4-cent area primarily consists of saplings of coffee, Caryota sp., Heliotropium sp., etc. None of the plant species identified in the area falls under critically endangered or vulnerable categories. Despite a slight variation in the vegetation of the serpent grove area, there is no clear demarcation between the serpent grove and the surrounding cultivated region. Approximately 165 square feet of the area is seen protected by a 15 x 11 feet wall, and sculptures of deities seen preserved inside the area. There is no evidence of tree felling or recent land clearing. The rubber trees planted within and around the grove area appears to be over 10 years old. Faunal diversity is very less in the area. The trees showed no evidence of nesting places for birds, suggesting a limited presence of avian habitation in the area. The committee observed that the entire 1.23-acre land is owned by private party, and the practice of worship has been carried out at the discretion of the owner and his family members.

6. After considering the aforementioned facts and examining the "Guidelines for selection and management of the Biodiversity Herita9e Sites" issued by the NBA in accordance with the provisions outlined in Section 37 of the Biological Diversity Act 2002, the committee investigated the probability of notifying the site as a biodiversity heritage site. The committee is of the opinion that the proposed site is not suitable for declaring it as a biodiversity heritage site. True copies of the photographs taken at the time of visit in the area are produced herewith and marked as R-2 ( a) and a true copy of the List of plant species located in Annexure the area is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R-2(b ) .”

5. Smt.Boby M.Sekhar – learned counsel for respondent No.4, submitted that the report of the Biodiversity Board speaks the truth and WP(C) NO. 37067 OF 2023 4 that the attempt of the petitioners is to put detriment on her client, even though he has received the same through a sale deed and not as an ancestral property. She submitted that the allegations in the writ petition are impelled by the petitioners solely to harass her client; and thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

6. I have considered the afore rival positions and have examined it on the touchstone of Ext.P1 judgment of this Court, which is relied upon by the petitioners also.

7. This Court has declared the law in the afore said judgment that, every Local Government Body will have to constitute a Biodiversity Management Committee and that the said Committees shall prepare the peoples’ Biodiversity Register at various levels, namely, Grama Panchayat/ Municipality/Municipal Corporation etc. The further directions in the said judgment are to the effect that the State Government shall, in consultation with the Local Government Bodies, then notify the “Serpent Groves”, identified as Biodiversity Heritage Sites by the afore said Committees.

8. Going by the afore prescriptions, when one examines the report now filed by the 2nd respondent – Biodiversity Board, it is clear that the competent Committee did not find the site suitable to be declared as a Biodiversity Heritage Site. Obviously, the opinion of the Committee WP(C) NO. 37067 OF 2023 5 being so, this Court cannot issue any further directions as prayed for by the petitioners. Of course, it would be up to them to challenge the recommendations of the Committee in terms of law; for which, they will have to invoke other appropriate remedies. In the afore circumstances, adverting to the afore extracted report of the 2nd respondent – Biodiversity Board, I close this writ petition, leaving all other liberties to the petitioners, as may be available to them in law. MC/8.1 Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE WP(C) NO. 37067 OF 2023 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37067/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3 Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.10.2022 IN WP (C) NO. 27162/2021 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 06.05.2023 SENT BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE STATE INFORMATION OFFICER EVIDENCING THE ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT BY THE 4THRESPONDENT FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE SERPENT GROVE DATED 09.10.2023 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SERPENT GROVE SITUATED IN THE LAND OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT RESPONDENT ANNEXURES Annexure R2(a) Annexure R2(b) True copies of the photographs taken at the time of visit in the area. True copy of the List of plant species located in the area.