IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2009 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 13832 of 2009(Y) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. P.K.HYDER, S/O. CHEKUTTY, PUTHANKOTTIL HOUSE, PAINKANNUR P.O., KUTTIPURAM. 2. M.PREMA, W/O. MURUGAN, SREEDHANYA NILAYAM, MALAYIL, KADAMPUZHA. 3. MURUGAN, SREEDHANYA NILAYAM, MALAYIL, KADAMPUZHA. 4. ABDULLA T., S/O. ALIKUTTY, THEKKINETH, THIRUNAVA. BY ADV. MR.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE TAHASILDAR, TIROOR TALUK, MALAPPURAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. M.A. ASIF. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2009, ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NO. 13833/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.13832/2009-Y: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF REGISTRATION PARTICULARS IN RESPECT OF JCB EXCAVATOR BEARING REGISTRATION NO. KL 10X 2061. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF REGISTRATION PARTICULARS IN RESPECT OF VEHICLE BEARING REG. NO. KL 55C 5040. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF REGISTRATION PARTICULARS IN RESPECT OF JCB BEARING NO.KL.55B 4545. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF REGISTRATION PARTICULARS IN RESPECT OF TIPPER BEARING REGISTRATION NO. KL.55 A 6040. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE SEISURE MAHAZAR DTD. 23/04/2009. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED VIDE RFB 4-19611/09 DTD. 28/04/09. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM FISHERIES DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PONNANI TO THE TAHSILDAR, TIROOR. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C)s.13832 & 13833/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Challenge in both the writ petitions are almost identical. Therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. I will refer to the facts in W.P.(C). 13832/2009 for the sake of convenience. 2. First petitioner is a registered owner of a tipper and the second petitioner is also a registered owner of another tipper lorry. Third petitioner is a registered owner of a JCB and the fourth petitioner is a registered owner of another tipper lorry, as evidenced by Exts.P1 to P3. These vehicles were being used to remove mud from a paddy field comprised in Re.Sy.48/1 of Tiroor Taluk, stated to be owned by one Kunju Hydru, S/o of Kunjumuhammed. It is contended that the owner of the land had applied and obtained permission for conducting a fish farm in his property and W.P.(C)s.13832 & 13833/2009 2 accordingly, petitioners had deployed their vehicles for removing mud from one portion of the property and depositing it to another place. Vehicles were then seized by the second respondent under Ext.P5 seizure mahazar which goes on to allege that the mud was removed from a paddy land without obtaining permission and that this is illegal. Writ petitioner challenges the seizure and also prays for a direction to release the vehicles. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed in W.P.(C). 13833/2009 and adopted in the other case. It is pointed out that the vehicles were deployed in paddy lands and the mud was being removed without the owner of the land obtaining permission from the competent authority under the Land Utilisation Order and the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Rules framed thereunder. Deployment of the vehicles are therefore, contrary to the provisions to the MMDR W.P.(C)s.13832 & 13833/2009 3 Act and Rules and the Land Utilisation order. Necessary enquiry is to be conducted and vehicles could be released only as per the orders of the District Collector after completion of the enquiry. 4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader. 5. A Division Bench of this Court in Construction Materials Movers Association v. State of Kerala (2008 (4) KLT, 909), declared that ordinary earth is also minor mineral within the meaning of the MMDR Act. Thus punitive provisions under the Act as also under the MMDR Rules are applicable to the ordinary earth also. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that assuming this be so, petitioners are only the registered owners of the vehicles which were deployed in the land and unless ordinary earth was removed from the land and taken to some other W.P.(C)s.13832 & 13833/2009 4 place, they cannot be proceeded against for infraction of the provisions of the MMDR Act or Minor Mineral Concession Rules. The question as to whether ordinary earth was removed from the land and taken outside or shifted from one area to another is a matter for enquiry by the District Collector. Learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioners could also be proceeded against for infraction of the provisions of the Kerala Paddy Lands and Wet Lands Reclamation Act. That is also a matter for enquiry by the District Collector. The enquiry already launched by the District Collector as submitted by the learned Government Pleader, shall be completed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. But in the meanwhile, it is only appropriate that the vehicles like tippers and JCBs which were deployed by the petitioners be released on interim custody, subject to such conditions as are deemed fit and appropriate by the District Collector. W.P.(C)s.13832 & 13833/2009 5 6. Accordingly First respondent, the District Collector, shall consider the request made by the petitioners for release of their respective vehicles on interim custody and orders in this regard shall be passed within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the District Collector decides to release the vehicles on interim custody, he shall do so subject to such conditions as are deemed appropriate and fit by him. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs