IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2008 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 27556 of 2008(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAMAKRISHNAN, PURAMPALLY, P.O. IRINGAL, (VIA) VADAKARA KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 521 BY ADV. SRI.C.VALSALAN SRI.I.K.RAJU SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN SMT.THUSHARA.V RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE, CIVIL STATION, CALICUT. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, IRINAL, P.O. IRINGAL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. CHANDRAN, KIZHAKKE MANAPPURATH, P.O. IRINGAL, (VIA) VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 4. PADUVAYAL PRASAD, THEKKINEDATH HOUSE, P.O. IRINGAL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 5. KIZLAKKE MANAPPURATH RAMAKRISHANAN P.O. IRINGAL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 6. KIZHEKKE MANAPPURTH SURESH BABU, P.O. IRINGAL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 7. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAYYOLY POLICE STATION, P.O. MELADY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNAN FOR R3 SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY FOR R3 GP SMT.SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).27556/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 21st day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner sought to construct a house in a property belonging to him, having an extent of 10 cents in Re-survey No.127/4A and the Panchayath granted permission as per Ext.P1. Third respondent is a neighbouring property owner. It seems that the petitioner submitted an application to the first respondent, RDO, for permission to remove the soil. First respondent forwarded the matter for enquiry and report to the second respondent. Third respondent objected to the same on the ground that his lateral support would be lost if there is an indiscriminatory removal of soil. Petitioner has an allegation that other persons persuaded the third respondent to approach the petitioner to withdraw from removing soil from his own property. Matter reached this Court earlier in Writ Petition No.15583/2008 and this Court directed the RDO to hear both the parties and pass orders. Pursuant thereto, Ext.P6 order was passed by the 27556/2008 2 RDO permitting the petitioner to remove soil. Later, it was immediately followed by Ext.P7 stop memo issued by the Village Officer and the same is the subject matter of the writ petition. 2. Counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent wherein it is stated that the additional Tahsildar, Koyilandy, reported that the property in the possession of the petitioner is at a height ranging between 12½ and 14 feet from the road abutting the property. It is evident from Ext.R3(b) that removal of earth by the petitioner would result in loss of lateral support to the petitioner's property. This aspect has been objected to by the petitioner. Petitioner refers to Ext.R3(c) certificate issued by the Panchayat also. 3. In my view, the issue is to be re-considered by the first respondent after hearing the third respondent also. 4. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of directing 27556/2008 3 the first respondent to hear the petitioner and the third respondent afresh and specifically mention the conditions under which the petitioner, if at all, is to be granted permission to remove the soil. It is made clear that any such condition imposed by the RDO to see that the third respondent would not be prejudiced by the removal of sand by the petitioner from his property, shall be treated as binding on the petitioner and the third respondent. Fresh orders in this regard shall be passed within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and there upon, petitioner shall be permitted to remove earth as permitted by the RDO. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs