IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2011 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1933 OP.No. 9967 of 2002(J) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.SUBHADRAMMA,PROPRIETRIX OF AJITHA BRICKS AND TILES INDUSTRIES,KIDANGAYOM, RESIDING AT VRINDAVANAM,SOORANADU SOUTH, PATHANAM P.O.,KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.C.V.VASUDEVAN SMT.V.SUJATHA SRI.P.M.MANOJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O. 2. SAVITHRI,MOHANAVILASOM, PATTICKAL VILLAGE,CHERUKUNNAM THOTTUEVA WARD,ANAYADI P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY,TRIVANDRUM. R1 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SANDESH RAJA R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.VIMALAN SRI.BIJU M.JOHN THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts 2/- -2- O.P.NO.9967/2002 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 23/8/2001 EXECUTED BY PALLICKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT FOR REMOVEL OF EARTH. P2 COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR RS.2,500/- FOR PAYMENT OF ABOVE ROYALTY. P3 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20/9/2001 IN I.A.NO.1729/2001IN O.S.NO.355/01 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ADOOR. P4 COPY OF THE PLAN SHOWING THE LOCATION AND EXTENT OF 52 CENTS IN SY.NO.511/10. P5 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4/9/2001 ISSUED BY SUB-COLLECTOR ALLOWING REMOVEL OF SOIL. P6 COPY OF THE REPORT OF PALLICKAL VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 30/7/01 FOR GIVING PERMISSION TO REMOVEL SOIL TO THE DEPTH OF 2 METERS IN SY.NO.511/10 OF PALLICKAL VILLAGE. P7 COPY OF THE FIELD SURVEY PLAN OF THODU PORUMBOKE AND ADJOINING LANDS IN SY.NO.513 AND 511. P8 COPY OF THE COMBINED SY.PLAN NO.509, 510, 511 AND 513. P9 COPY OF THE STATMENTOF A NEIGHBOURER SUKUMARA KURUP. P10 COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF CHELLAMMA AMMA ANOTHER NEIGHBOURER. P11 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26/9/2001 INO.P.NO.28641/2001 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. P12 COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 17/2/2001 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P13 COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 7/2/2001 PASSED BY PALLICKAL PANCHAYAT. P14 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 26/7/2001 FILEDBY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB-COLLECTOR, ADOOR FOR PERMISSION P15 COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 27/11/2001 SENT BY THE TAHSILDAR, ADOOR. P16 COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 29/11/2001 SENT BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ADOOR. P17 COPY OF THE ORDERDATED 22/1/2002 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P18 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 3/12/2001 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. 3/- -3- O.P.NO.9967/2002 P18(A) COPY OF THE EXT.P18. P19 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 13/12/2001 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. P19(A) COPY OF THE COVER RECEIVEDFOR THE ABOVE NOTICE. P20 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 18/1/2002 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. P20(A) COPY OF THE COVER OF NOTICE DATED 18/1/2002. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` O.P. No. 9967 of 2002 J ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 8th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Petitioner approached this Court seeking to quash Exts.P15, 16 & 17 and for a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to grant her permission for removal of clay from the property situated in Survey No.511/10 of Pallickal village as prayed for in Ext.P14. According to the petitioner, in Ext.P11 judgment in O.P.No.28641/2001, this Court had directed that a decision at the request made for removal of clay should be taken by the District Collector, after issuing notice to the parties including the petitioner. The main grievance is about the impugned proceedings leading to Ext.P17 order passed by the District Collector, directing the petitioner not to remove clay from the property situated in Survey No.511/8, 511/9 and 511/10 of Pallickal village. That order was passed as early as on 22.01.2002. OP No.9967/2002 : 2 : 2. In this writ petition, after affidavits were filed, this Court passed an order dated 10.02.2003 in C.M.P.No.17787/2002. In that order, taking note of the fact that the order was passed without hearing the concerned parties including the petitioner, this Court directed that Ext.P17 shall be kept in abeyance until a fresh order is passed in the matter. On that basis, it was ordered that parties shall be heard and a fresh order shall be passed within thirty days of receipt of a copy of that order. 3. Virtually, with the directions contained in the order dated 10.02.2003, the writ petition has become infructuous. This is for the reason that consequential order is not produced or challenged in this writ petition. Taking note of the above subsequent developments, this original petition is disposed of. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/09.06 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge OP No.9967/2002 : 3 : ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ````````````````````````````````````````` O.P. No. 9967 of 2002 J ````````````````````````````````````````` J U D G M E N T 8th day of June, 2011