IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25533 of 2010(N) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ BABU PAUL, AGED 48, S/O.LATE E.I.PAULOSE, ERAKUZHA HOUSE, MANKADAVU, KALLARKUTTY. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PAINAVU, IDUKKI-685 603. 3. THE SECRETARY, VELLATHOOVAL PANCHAYAT, VELLATHOOVAL P.O., (IDUKKI DIST)-685 563. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, VELLATHOOVAL P.O., (IDUKKI (DIST)-685 563. 5. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ADIMALI-685 561. 6. GEORGE, AGED 55, S/O.LATE VARGHESE, PALLICKAMAILIL HOUSE, MANKADAVU-685 562. R1,R2,R4 & R5 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN R3 BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ WP(C).No. 25533/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: SHOWING THE POSITION OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER. P2: SHOWING THE VEHICLES BROUGHT TO THE RIVER BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 30/12/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P4: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 10/07/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE svs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.25533 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner owns 5 acres of property on the side of Kallar river in Idukki District. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that, due to the indiscriminate and illegal mining of river sand from the Kallar river, near the petitioner's property, by a group of people headed by the 6th respondent, his property on the river bank has collapsed into the river. It is also his allegation that vehicles are brought into the middle of the river and sand that is mined is loaded from there. Complaining of the above, petitioner made various representations to the authorities and since there has not been any response and as illegal sand mining is continuing, this writ petition has been filed, seeking directions to the 3rd respondent to take immediate steps, for preventing illegal sand mining and entry of vehicles directly into the river. 3. On the instruction received by him, the learned 2 W.P.(C).No.25533 of 2010 Government Pleader has submitted that, the 5th respondent has inspected the property and that he could not notice any sand mining in the property, as alleged by the petitioner. The report further says that it is mainly on account of the flow of the water that damage has been caused to the petitioner's property. 4. As far as the 3rd respondent panchayat is concerned, the panchayat is confirming the allegations of the petitioner and submits that if the sand mining continues, there will be soil erosion and damage to the agricultural property of the petitioner. Notice to the 6th respondent was returned as 'unclaimed' and thereupon the petitioner filed I.A.No.13002/10 and service of notice on the 6th respondent was declared, by order dated 24.9.2010. 5. I have considered the submissions made. 6. The panchayat has no case that the area in question has a 'kadavu', as defined in the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, enabling the 6th respondent or anybody else to carry out sand mining from the 3 W.P.(C).No.25533 of 2010 place. Photographs produced by the petitioner prima facie indicates that, the vehicles are being brought into the water and sand is also removed from the river. Since there is no 'kadavu', as defined in S.2(e) of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, necessarily it is the responsibility of the authorities to prevent sand mining, either by the 6th respondent or anybody else. Since the panchayat also welcomes such preventive measures, to protect both the river and the adjacent agricultural properties, I feel it necessary that, the respondents 3 and 5 should take appropriate action, to ensure that there is no unauthorised removal of river sand from any portion of the river near to the petitioner's property, making use of the road which passes through the property of the petitioner. Therefore, I direct that respondents 3 and 5 will ensure that appropriate action in this matter is taken, if necessary, by conducting periodical inspections of the 'site in question'. It is also made clear that, if the petitioner has any complaint of removal of river sand from the place, it would open 4 W.P.(C).No.25533 of 2010 to the petitioner to bring it to the notice of the respondents 3 and 5 and they shall take appropriate action in this regard. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge. ami/ The word “petitioner” occurring in line 14 at page 3 of the judgment dated 25.11.2010 in W.P.(C) 25533/10 is corrected and substituted as “6th respondent” as per order dated 12.8.11 in I.A.No.12891/11 in W.P.(C) 25533/10. Sd/- Registrar (Judicial)