IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WA.No. 1164 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.10589/2010 Dated 07/04/2010 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ BENNY P.D., S/O.DEVASSYKUTTY, PRESIDENT, KANNIMANGALAM RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, PUTHEN HOUSE, QUARRY JUNCTION, KANIMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.MANURAJ. K.J RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,(REVENUE DEPARTMENT),GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT COCHI. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, ALUVA. 5. THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER. 6. MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY GEOLOGIST, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM,. 7. MALAYATTOOR-NEELEESWARAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NEELEESWARAM, NEAR KALADY. W.A.NO.1164/2010 8. T.P.SABU, THALIATH HOUSE, NEELEESWARAM PO, VIA KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,. 9. JOEMON JOSEPH, EDATHALA HOUSE, NEELEESWARAM PO, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 10. N.K.SHAJI, NIRAPPEL HOUSE, MALAYATTOOR PO,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, 11. PAUL WILSON, THALIATH HOUSE, NEELEESWARAM PO, VIA KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,. ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS, SC, POLL.C.BOAR FOR R5 MR.BENNY GERVACIS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.T.R.RAJAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. ---------------------------------- W.A. No.1164 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 1st day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. The Writ Appeal is filed challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge declining to interfere with the quarrying operations the contesting respondents are carrying on in the Government land assigned to them years back for rubber cultivation. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned Government Pleader and learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents. 3. The land assigned is rocky and therefore the Government permitted quarrying operations, which was challenged by the petitioner in the writ petition. Learned Single Judge found that the land is unfit for rubber cultivation and therefore the grantees were rightly permitted by the W.A.No.1164/2010 -2- Government to quarry stone from the property. The appellant, as a neighbour, objected the same raising the contention that the quarrying is in violation of condition of assignment. However, learned Government Pleader submitted that the policy of the Government is to permit quarrying, if the land assigned is unfit for cultivation. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the Writ Appeal. Consequently, the same is dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JUDGE) jg