IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 28593 of 2011(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- GEORGE KUTTY, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 51 YEARS, MANGAL MAILPAN HOUSE, VADAKKUMBHAGAM, NORTH MANJAPRA VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY (REVENUE DEPARTMENT), GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 006. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM-682 030. 3. THE MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. PIN-683 020. 4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LR), KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM-682 030. 5. THE AIYYAMPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, AIYYAMPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 581, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 6. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AIYYAMPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 581. 7. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AIYYAMPUZHA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 581. 8. ESTAPPANOS M.D., AGED 65 YEARS, MOOLEN HOUSE, ANGAMALLY (NEAR RAILWAY STATION), OPP.LIC-683 572. WPC NO.28593/11 -2- 9. BIJI STEPHEN, S/O.M.D.ESTAPHANOSE, AGED 28 YEARS, MOOLEN HOUSE, ANGAMALLY (NEAR RAILWAY STATION), OPP.LIC-683 572. 10. JOSY STEPHEN, S/O.STEPHEN, S/O.M.D.ESTAPHANOSE, AGED 39 YEARS, MOOLEN HOUSE, ANGAMALLY (NEAR RAILWAY STATION), OPP.LIC-683 572. 11. VARGHESE VITHAYATHIL, S/O.ANTONY VITHAYATHIL, KURUMASSERY KARA, AYIROOR VILLAGE, NORTH PARAVOOR-683 579. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED SHAH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.28593/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1- THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DATED 31/10/2009. EXHIBIT P2- THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR GRANTING PERMISSION TO THE RESPONDENTS NO.8 TO 12 TO EXCAVATE THESOIL FROM THE PROPERTY DATED 27/5/2010. EXHIBIT P3- A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)NO.5074/11 DATED 06.04.2011. EXHIBIT P4- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE IST RESPONDENT NO. G.O.(MS)324/2011 RD DATED 03.09.2011. EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 5.4.2010 ISSUED by the INDUSTRIAL DEPARTMENT (MINING AND GEOLOGY). EXHIBIT P6- TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 30.9.11 INW PC 38750/2010. EXHIBIT P7- TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 20.8.11 INWPC NO.38750/10. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 28593 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 10th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be the neighbouring property owner of respondents 8 to 11. He has filed this writ petition challenging Exts.P2 to P4 and also to restrain the respondents from excavation of soil from their property. He also seeks a direction to respondents 2 to 7 to take immediate and effective steps against the excavation of soil by respondents 8 to 11 from their properties. 2. Ext.P2 is the order passed by the District Collector on an application filed by the 10th respondent permitting him to remove earth from the property mentioned therein. A reading of Ext.P2 shows that before Ext.P2 order was passed, reports were obtained from the Additional Tahsildar, Revenue Divisional Officer and Geologist. This also shows that seven conditions have been imposed subject to which alone removal can be made. Among the conditions, one of the condition provides that the removal of earth shall not cause any damage to the neighbouring property owners. 3. It appears that coming to know of Ext.P2, petitioner WPC No. 28593/11 :2 : approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.5074/11 with prayers which are sought in this writ petition and also to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner against Ext.P2. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment directing consideration of Ext.P4 in that writ petition. Accordingly, the matter was considered by the 1st respondent and Ext.P4 order was passed imposing additional conditions. It is thereafter that this writ petition has been filed. 4. Having gone through Exts.P2 and P4, I do not think there is any substance in the objections now raised by the petitioner. First of all, sufficient safeguards have been imposed in both these orders which will avoid any nuisance that is likely to be caused to the petitioner from the neighbouring property owners. In such circumstances, I am not inclined to think that the petitioner has made out a case for interference in a writ petition. 5. Be that as it may, if it is the case of the petitioner that in the process of removal of earth on the strength of Exts.P2 and P4, if party respondents have violated any of the conditions WPC No. 28593/11 :3 : imposed therein, it is always open to the petitioner to move appropriate Civil Court and obtain appropriate reliefs. It is also open to the petitioner to bring violations, if any, in that behalf to the notice of the authorities concerned. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp