Disposed

Visalakshmi Amma v. the Geologist, Dept. of Mining & Geology

Kerala HC15 Oct 2008WP(C)/28082/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought a direction to stop mining sand and fill pits on their land. The first respondent confirmed mining was stopped due to permit violation and assured reclamation of pits, leading the court to close the petition.

What did the court decide?

Court recorded the first respondent's undertaking to reclaim pits and closed the writ petition without further directions.

Visalakshmi Amma Vs the Geologist, Dept. of… — Mining and Natural Resources | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2008 / 23RD ASWINA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 28082 of 2006(R) -------------------------PETITIONER(S):

¶6

¶7

VISALAKSHI AMMA, W/O.LATE JAYAPRAKASH, KRISHNA VILASAM, K.S.MANGALAM P.O., VAIKOM DIST., KOTTAYAM.

¶8

DHANYA.K.J., D/O.LATE JAYAPRAKASH, KRISHNA VILASAM, K.S.MANGALAM P.O., VAIKOM, DIST. KOTTAYAM.

¶9

RANJITH.K.J., S/O.LATE JAYAPRAKASH, KRISHNA VILASAM, K.S.MANGALAM P.O., VAIKOM, DIST.KOTTAYAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

--------------1. THE GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KOTTAYAM.

¶13

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALA, DIST. KOTTAYAM.

¶14

THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VAIKOM CIRCLE, VAIKOM, DIST. KOTTAYAM.

¶15

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT., GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

SHOMY GEORGE, S/O.GEORGE KURIAKOSE, PAZHEMADATHIL, VALLAKAM MURI, NADUVILE VILLAGE, KIZHAKKUMCHERI, VAIKOM TALUK, DISTRICT KOTTAYAM.

¶17

JOBY KURIAN, S/O.JOSEPH KURIAN, KADAVANATTIL, VALLAKAM, NADUVILE VILLAGE, KIZHAKKUMCHERI, VAIKOM TALUK, DISTRICT KOTTAYAM.

¶18

ADV. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER FOR R6 SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN FOR R6

¶19

SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) FOR R5 GP SRI.RAVIKRISHNAN

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C).No. 28082 of 2006

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

EXHIBITS
EXT.P1-	TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT EVIDENCING THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND
EXT.P2-	TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED DTED 19.5.05 EVIDENCING SALE OF 74.5 CENTS OF LAND IN SURVEY NO.36/10
EXT.P3-	TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 19.5.05 EVIDENCING THE SALE OF 30 CENTS OF LAND
EXT.P4-	TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH SHOWING THE LIE AND LOCATION OF ALIENATED 109.5 CENTS OF LAND.
EXT.P5-	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 24.8.04 IN WP(C).28521/03 OF THIS HONOURABLE HIGH COURT
EXT.P6-	TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 10.10.06 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM
EXT.P7-	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 18.10.06 BEFORE THE RDO
EXT.P8-	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 23.10.06 BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS
EXT.P9-	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.1665/05 ISSUED BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF EXHIBIT P8

(TRUE COPY)

P.A TO JUDGE

V.GIRI, J

W.P.(C).28082/2006

Dated this the 15^th day of October, 2008

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Writ petition is being filed seeking a direction to respondents 1 to 4 to prevent further mining of sand from the land covered by Exts.P2 and P3 sale deeds until the pits which have already been dugged up are filled.

¶31

2. Relevant portion of the counter affidavit filed by

¶32

the first respondent reads as follows:-

¶33

“It is most humbly submitted that mining activities are stopped in the area (vide this office notice No.2686/DOY/ML/06 dated 20.10.2006) as the 1^st respondent's office noticed the violation of permit condition while conducting site inspection ie, the permit holder had not kept 5 metres of lateral support from the boundary of the petitioner's property. As per the instruction of the 1^st respondent the quarrying permit holder had

¶34

W.P.(C).28082/2006

¶35

¶36

surrendered the quarrying permit and 'P' forms issued to him from this office by which the transportation of sand is facilitated. It is also submitted that the 1^st respondents office will take necessary legl action to reclaim the pits formed by mining of sand after the permissible quantity of sand is extracted. In this case permit is granted only for a quantity of 3750 Metric Tonne of Ordinary Sand. Where a total quantity of 6500 Metric Tonne can be extracted @ 400 Metric Tonne per Are.”

¶37

3. Aforementioned statement is recorded. First

¶38

respondent shall take action as undertaken above. In the circumstances, no further directions are required in this writ petition and the same is accordingly closed.

¶39

V.GIRI, Judge

¶40

mrcs

Visalakshmi Amma v. the Geologist, Dept. of Mining & Geology

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Visalakshmi Amma v. the Geologist, Dept. of Mining & Geology

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

District Collector, Tvm. Vs Sarojini Amma

N.S.S.Training College Vs N.C.T.E

Sreelal Devraj Vs Kerala State Film Devlopment Corporation

P.I.Prabhakaran Vs the R.T.a., Ernakulam

E.K.Sivadasan Vs the Manager, Kerala Financial Cor

Suhrabi Vs Secretary, the Land Tribunal, Kozhikode