Disposed

Babu John v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Apr 2007RP/268/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This review petition disposed of a dispute regarding the extent of the petitioner's right to remove soil during ground levelling. The court clarified that the petitioner's conduct of commercial excavation was incorrect but affirmed their right to remove soil generated solely for the purpose of levelling the land.

What did the court decide?

Clarified that the petitioner is entitled to excavate land and remove sand generated for the specific purpose of leveling.

Babu John Vs State of Kerala — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 10TH APRIL 2007 / 20TH CHAITHRA 1929 RP.No. 268 of 2007(C) --------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.20187/2006 Dated 03/11/2006 ....................

¶4

PETITIONER/REVIEW PETITIONER

¶5

¶6

BABU JOHN, S/O.JOHN, VAZHIPLAKKAL HOUSE, NEDUMKUNNAM VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM (DIST).

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU

¶8

RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS

¶9

¶10

1.STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETAR TO GOVT. OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, GOVT. OF SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2.REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM.

¶12

3.NEDUMKUNNAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, NEDUMKUNNAM P.O., REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶13

4.PRESIDENT, NEDUMKUNNAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH NEDUMKUNNAM P.O., KOTTAYAM (DIST).

¶14

5.VICE PRESIDENT, NEDUMKUNNAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, NEDUMKUNNAM P.O., KOTTAYAM (DIST).

¶15

R1-R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.T.B.RAMANI

¶16

R3 TO R5 BY ADV.MR.MATHEW SEBASTIAN

¶17

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/04/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.

¶19

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.NO.268 of 2007 in W.P.(C)No.20187 of 2006

¶20

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 10^th April, 2007

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The grievance of the petitioner who was the petitioner in the Writ Petition is that though the petitioner is carrying on levelling work and removing soil for the limited purpose of levelling only as permitted by Exts.P3 and P4, the Panchayat and the local people are taking up the stand that under Exts.P3 and P4 the petitioner is not entitled to remove any soil at all.

¶23

Mr.Mathew Sebastian, counsel for the Panchayat would submit that under the guise of levelling the land the petitioner is commercially excavating the land and removing the sand even beyond the extent necessary for levelling the sand for sale.

¶24

The Review Petition will stand disposed of clarifying that the stand of the Panchayat and the persons who are opposed to the activities of the petitioner that the petitioner is not entitled to remove any soil at all is not correct. The petitioner is entitled to excavate the land to the extent necessary for levelling the land and is entitled to remove the sand which has been generated while excavating the same for the purpose of levelling the land.

¶25

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE

¶26

srd

¶27

W.P.C.No. - 2 -

Babu John v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu John v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Sankara Warrier Vs State of Kerala

V.V. Shaji Vs Thiruvalla Municipality

Pearl Spot Resort Ltd. Vs the Secretary

Jose Mathew Vs the President, Kalady Grama Panchayath

C.K.Abu & Another Vs Perumbavoor Municipality

Gopalakrishnan Nair Vs Cherthala Municipality