New York, Aug. 24 -- The Kerala high court has ruled that cowledars in Lakshadweep are landowners under a 1965 tenancy regulation, struck down a 2023 Union government amendment to that regulation as unconstitutional, and set aside the Lakshadweep administration's June 2024 order to acquire pandaram lands for tourism infrastructure. The court directed that occupancy papers - pending in many cases for decades - be issued within six to eight months. The ruling is the most consequential judicial intervention on land rights in Lakshadweep in six decades. It restores statutory protections the Union government had sought to strip, halts a takeover proposed for tourism infrastructure that islanders and marine scientists say the fragile atolls cannot support, and forces any future acquisition through a legal route requiring fair market compensation rather than the token payments the administration had offered. But the reprieve is partial: a Union regulation notified this year gives the administration sweeping planning powers over island land, and islanders intend to challenge it. In a 1,338-page judgment earlier this month, justice TR Ravi made three findings that together dismantled the legal framework the administration had built for a fast-tracked takeover of islander-held land. First, the court ruled that cowledars in possession of pandaram lands when the Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands Land Revenue and Tenancy Regulation took effect in 1965 are entitled to be treated as landowners under Section 2(n) of the regulation. Obtaining formal occupancy rights under Section 83 is not a precondition to that status, the court said. The papers only confirm what the statute already grants. Second, the court struck down as unconstitutional and unenforceable the 2023 Amendment Regulation, notified by the Union government on 25 October 2023. The amendment had deleted Section 15A - a provision introduced by a 2020 amendment that protected Scheduled Tribe islanders who acquired pandaram lands by sale or gift on or before 31 December 2019 as lawful occupants eligible for occupancy rights. Lakshadweep's population was declared Scheduled Tribe under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes list (modification orders), 1956, which is why the constitutional protections at issue apply. The deletion was arbitrary, the court said, and had been notified without the prior consultation with the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) required under Article 338A(9) of the Constitution for major policy matters affecting Scheduled Tribes - a requirement that survives Lakshadweep's ceasing to be a Scheduled Area on becoming a Union Territory. Third, the court ruled that the June 2024 takeover orders were without authority of law. Those orders proposed to take possession of pandaram lands from cowledars by paying only for the value of improvements such as coconut trees. Landowners cannot be dispossessed by a process designed for tenants or licensees, the court said. Any acquisition must go through the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, with fair market value paid for the land itself. The judgment set three separate deadlines. The administrator must confer occupancy rights on cowledars in possession at the 1965 commencement, and their legal heirs and assigns, within six months. Others in possession of pandaram lands on the same date, entitled under Section 83 and Rule 116 of the 1968 rules, must be granted rights within eight months, either on their pending applications or after a general notice under Rule 47(6). Pending review petitions and representations must be disposed of within four months. Pandaram lands account for 60% of Lakshadweep's 32 sq km land area, and the administration had planned to take over these holdings in phases as and when required. Nearly 200 petitions filed by islanders had challenged the June 2024 order of the Lakshadweep collector, which authorised acquisition proceedings for eco-tourism projects and allied infrastructure. The Kerala high court had issued an interim stay in July 2024 after protests and legal challenges. Lakshadweep collector Shivam Chandra said the administration was studying the order. "We are currently studying the full implications of the judgment and the legal questions involved in the matter. As this is an active legal matter with potential complexities, it would be premature to comment on administration's response or next course of action at this stage," he said. The dispute over land ownership on the islands runs back more than four centuries. The Arakkal rulers, who took full control of the islands in the mid-1500s, claimed ownership over uncultivated land and uninhabited islands - the origin of the term pandaram, meaning government land. Under British administration from 1875, islanders were allowed to occupy pandaram land as cultivating tenants, or cowledars, under 40-year leases. When land was reclaimed or taken for public use, compensation was paid for coconut trees rather than the land itself. Agatti's airport and government buildings in Kavaratti were built on that basis. The 1965 regulation changed the underlying framework. Section 2(n) defined a landowner to include a person shown as holding pandaram land as a cowledar in government records; Section 83 empowered the administrator to grant occupancy rights to pandaram landholders. But large numbers of applications went unprocessed for decades, and the administration had begun treating that as absence of entitlement rather than administrative delay. Justice Ravi said it could not take advantage of its own inaction: where the statute conferred a right, delay in a government file could not extinguish it. In a video statement, Lakshadweep member of Parliament Hamdullah Sayeed said the verdict "upholds the land rights of the people of Lakshadweep and reinforces the constitutional protections guaranteed to them" and called it "a victory for justice, constitutional values, and the rule of law." He said the judgment "sends a clear and significant message that any action affecting the lawful rights of the people must be undertaken strictly within the framework of the Constitution and the rule of law." Koya Arafa, counsel for the petitioners from Minicoy, said the islands' tenancy history was central to the case. "The judgment is very good on that account. It talks about history and addresses all concerns raised by both sides of the case," he said. "We were set to lose 60% of our land had the court not ruled in favour of the islanders, and land is a vital resource here." The judgment comes amid a deepening ecological crisis on India's only coral atolls - one the administration's tourism push threatens to worsen. Two pressures are at work: climate-driven thermal stress bleaching the reefs from the water, and locally-driven tourism footprint eroding what recovery capacity remains. "A large patch of Acropora corals, which was bleached during the 2024 bleaching event, continue to be in a degraded state both in 2025 and 2026 with no signs of recovery," said Alvin Anto, senior researcher at the Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, referring to the staghorn variety. Thermal stress remained the biggest threat to Lakshadweep's corals, he said. On some islands such as Chetlat, "coral patches were dead and macro algae growth was observed" - a condition that will further impede recovery. Tourism has compounded the damage. "The tourism department has been issuing permits more than the carrying capacity of the islands," said Sameer Anwar, a scuba instructor in Agatti. "The situation in Bangaram and Thinnakkara is really bad." Both are uninhabited, government-controlled islands used as tourist resorts. The administration has been expanding tourism infrastructure on them over the objections of islanders who warn of environmental damage. For islanders, the court's ruling is a partial reprieve rather than a settled victory. The Union government has promulgated the Lakshadweep Town and Country Planning and Development Regulation, 2026, which empowers the administration to declare any piece of land a planning area, constitute Planning and Development Authorities, approve or modify Regional and Master Plans, and suspend Master Plans during emergencies. "The court is in favour of the people, but the government has already issued the Lakshadweep Town and Country Planning Rules through which they can grab any land that they want," said Sabith PK, a native of Kadmat island. "So even though the high court ruled in our favour, there is no security. We are planning to appeal against the new rules as well." The two questions - who owns the land and what happens to the reefs - are for islanders the same. The acquisition the court has now blocked was proposed to expand the tourism footprint that scientists and locals say is already exceeding what the islands can bear. "The judgment is very good for us," Anwar said. "It will restore our rights over the land."...