IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2010 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 10589 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- BENNY.P.D., S/O.DEVASSYKUTTY, PRESIDENT, KANNIMANGALAM RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, PUTHEN HOUSE, QUARRY JUNCTION, KANIMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.MANURAJ. K.J RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. 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 KOCHI. 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. 8. T.P.SABU, THALIATH HOUSE, NEELEESWARAM P.O., VIA KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. WP(C).No. 10589 of 2010(W) 2 9. JOEMON JOSEPH, EDATHALA HOUSE, NEELESWARAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 10. N.K.SHAJI, NIRAPPEL HOUSE, MALAYATTOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 11. PAUL WILSON, THALIATH HOUSE, NEELESWARAM P.O., VIA KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY GOVT.PLEADER SHRI M.A.ASIF FOR 1 TO R4 & R6 STANDING SHRI M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS FOR R5 ADV. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R8-11 SRI.T.R.RAJAN FOR R8-11 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C)No.10589/10 PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA DATED 25.5.70. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA OF THE PREDECESSOR IN THE INTEREST OF THE 9TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA OF THE PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST OF THE 10TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA OF THE PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST OF THE 11TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXTS: EXT.R8(A): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.7.09 PASSED BY THE RDO, FORT KOCHI. EXT.R8(B): TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN W.P.(C)No.2809/10 DATED 22.2.10. TRUE COPY T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.10589 OF 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of April, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges the quarrying operations conducted by the respondents 8 to 11 in the property mentioned in Exhibits P1 to P4 as illegal and violative of the provisions of the Kerala Land Assignment Act and Rules. It is mainly prayed that a direction may be issued to the respondents 1 to 7 to immediately cancel the patta issued in respect of the land mentioned in Exhibits P1 to P4 pattas as the conditions of the assignment are being violated. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 8 to 11. 3. The area is known as Illithodu-Mulamkuzhi in Ernakulam District. In the year 1973, the then Government decided to give 650 acres of land to private persons for promotion of agricultural operations such as rubber, coconut trees, arecanut trees etc. and other seasonal cultivations. 250 families were accordingly W.P.(C) No.10589/2010 2 selected and each of the families were given 2.57 acres of land and later in the year 1981, pattayams were also issued. The petitioner's predecessor in interest also obtained certain extent of land similarly. 4. It is the main contention of the petitioner's that in violation of the conditions of the pattas thus granted and without having any cultivation of rubber etc., the contesting respondents are conducting quarrying operations. It is pointed out that by the use of heavy explosives, the people in the locality are put to great hardship. Damage is being caused to the trees and buildings in the nearby properties. 5. It is averred in paragraph 8 of the writ petition that the petitioner and other residents of the locality have approached the respondents 1 to 7 to stop function of the quarry conducted by the respondents 8 to 11 and according to the petitioner, no proper licences have been issued also. 6. The 8th respondent has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of respondents 9 to 11 also. It is pointed out that the allegations in the writ petition have no basis and the quarries are being W.P.(C) No.10589/2010 3 conducted strictly in accordance with law on the basis of valid permit/ licence. The allegations against the quarrying were enquired into by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi and it was found in the enquiry that the quarries are being conducted strictly in accordance with law on the basis of valid permits, licences etc. Exhibit R8(a) is a copy of the order thus issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer. 7. It is pointed out that the said order was passed on the petition preferred by the residents Association represented by the petitioner. It is also pointed out that the respondents 8 to 11 have planted rubber in their properties and quarries are being conducted in the portion of the property where rubber cultivation is not possible on account of the rocky nature. It is thus pointed out that there is no violation of the conditions of the permit and after the quarrying is completed, the property will be duly filled by earth and thereafter will be utilised for rubber cultivation. It is averred that the quarry is being conducted strictly in accordance with the terms of the permit/ lease granted by the Department of Mining & Geology. The respondents are also relying upon Exhibit W.P.(C) No.10589/2010 4 R8(b) judgment of this Court in support of their pleas. 8. Evidently, Exhibit R8(a) order clearly governs the issue raised by the petitioner and against him. The same was passed based on a complaint raised by the petitioner himself. The complaint was enquired into and it was found that the quarry and the metal crusher have been there for more than 20 years and there are no residential houses nearby and it is not a thickly populated area. All statutory licences have been obtained for conducting the quarry. Those documents were produced during the hearing also. It is also mentioned that the present complaint arose due to dispute between the owners and the labourers in the quarry. Finding that the functioning of the quarries do not cause any hindrance to the life and properties of the inhabitants, Exhibit R8(a) order has been passed. 9. Exhibit R8(a) order is not under challenge in this writ petition. Therefore, as the complaints have already been enquired into and rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as sought for in this writ petition. The findings rendered by the Revenue Divisional Officer W.P.(C) No.10589/2010 5 are clearly against the pleas raised by the petitioner with regard to the damage said to have been caused due to the functioning of the quarry and want of licences etc. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel, there is no violation of the conditions of the assignment also. It is pointed out that rubber is being cultivated in various areas and the entire property will be utilized for rubber cultivation after the rocky area is cleared. In that view of the matter, the directions as sought for by the petitioner are not liable to be granted. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp The words “Illithodu-Mulamkuzhi” occurring in the first line, the figure “1973” occurring in the second line, the figure “2.57” occurring in the 6th line and the figure “1981” occurring in the 7th line in paragraph 3 of the judgment dated 07/04/2010 in WP(C) 10589/2010 are substituted with the words and figures “Kannimangalam”, “1971”, “3.50” and “1971” respectively vide order dated 15/06/2010 in I.A 6673/2010 in WP(C) 10589/2010. Sd/- Registrar (Judicial)