IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 28TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 13181 of 2006(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAJEEV, S/O. RAVEENDRAN, AGED 46 YEARS,FARMER,RESIDING AT KUZHICHALIL HOUSE KULASEKHARAMANGALAM KARA, KULASEKHARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KULASEKHARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. L.G. SURESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 10.12.2003 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 4.5.2006 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT WITHOUT DATE. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.5.2006 SUBMITTED ;BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.5.2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.5.2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 13181 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner got permission for mining sand from his land with specific undertaking that he will fill up the mining pit within a time frame after mining is over. However, after completion of mining, he failed to fill up the mining pit which led to initiation of recovery proceedings for recovery of cost required for filling up the pit. Even though initially stay was granted, this Court vide order dated 28.2.2007 vacated stay with specific direction that if petitioner does not fill up the mining pit, recovery can be continued. I do not find any justification to deviate from the view taken in the interim order. Consequently, W.P. is disposed of making the interim order dated 28.2.2007 as part of the judgment or in other words, leaving freedom to the respondents to proceed for recovery if the petitioner has not filled; up the pit formed on account of mining. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 2