Partly allowed

Muhammed Sherif v. Revenue Divisional Officer,Tirur

Kerala HC14 Dec 2011WP(C)/27329/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the order confirming the cancellation of a permit for land leveling. It directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to issue permission for removing only piled unconsolidated loose earth under strict conditions imposed by sub-ordinate officials, ensuring no depletion of the ground water table.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the order confirming cancellation of the permit; directed respondent to issue permission for removing piled unconsolidated loose earth under strict conditions, time limits, and inspections.

Muhammed Sherif Vs Revenue Divisional Officer,Tirur — Kerala HC (2011) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/23RD AGRAHAYANA 1933

¶5

WPC.No. 27329 of 2010 (M)

¶6

-------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

MUHAMMED SHERIF ,S/O.MUHAMMED ALIAS BAVA, THARAMEL HOUSE,CHELAMPRA.P.O,THIRURANGADI TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRU-676101

¶12

2. THE TAHSILDAR,THIRURANGADI TALUK, THIRURANGADI,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676505

¶13

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,CHELAMPRA VILLAGE, THIRURANGADI TALUK,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.-676505

¶14

4. AHAMMED KUTTY,S/O.UNNIKOYA, KALLUVALAPPIL HOUSE, IDIMUZHIKKAL, PIN-673634

¶15

5. SAIDALAVI, S/O.MUHAMMED MASTER, KOPLAKKATTU HOUSE, CHELAMRA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676505

¶16

6. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM-676505

¶17

R7 THE DISTRICT OFFICER , GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT, MALAPPURAM-676505

¶18

IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 27-1-2011 IN I.A.NO.1205/2011

¶19

WPC.No. 27329 of 2010 (M) --2--

¶20

R,R4-5 BY SMT.B.R.SINDU R,R1 BY SRI.K.A.JALEEL, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL R, BY SMT.P.A.REZIYA (ADV.COMMISSIONER) R, BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT ROSE MICHAEL

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-12-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

WPC.No. 27329 of 2010 (M)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS

¶25

P1 COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.348/1999 OF SRO, THENJIPALAM

¶26

P2 COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.5148/2004 OF SRO, THENJIPALAM

¶27

P3 COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.2199/2007 OF SRO, THENJIPALAM

¶28

P4 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RDO, THIRUR DATED 01-08-2007

¶29

P5 COPY OF THE REQUISITION DATED 12-05-2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT SEEKING PERMISSION FOR LEVELING THE LAND MENTIONED IN EXHIBIT P2 AND P3

¶30

P6 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14-01-2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶31

P7 COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT CANCELING EXHIBIT P4 AND P8 ORDERS DATED 23-01-2010

¶32

P8 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT MADE IN W.P.C NO.11938 OF 2010 DATED 06-04-2010

¶33

P9 COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 05-04-2010 ISSUED BY THE INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KERALA

¶34

P10 COPY OF THE ORDER MADE IN R.P.NO.533/2010 DATED 29-06-2010

¶35

P11 COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT ON 01-07-2010

¶36

P12 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02-08-2010 PASSED BY THE IST RESP0NDENT

¶37

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS

NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A. TO JUDGE

SMM

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.

¶43

W.P.(C) No.27329 OF 2010

¶44

Dated this the 14^th day of December, 2011

¶45

J U D G M E N T

¶46

The petitioner is the owner of immovable properties covered under Exts.P1 to P3 sale deeds. Issue involved in this writ petition pertains to removal of red earth from the said property, for the purpose of leveling terrain of the land. Through Exts.P4 and P6 orders the first respondent had permitted the petitioner to level the land by cutting earth and by removing the excess red earth from the property. But subsequently through Ext.P7 the said permit was cancelled stating the reason that the neighbouring residents have complained about environmental problems,and that the petitioner has removed earth not in strict compliance with the conditions incorporated under Exts.P4 and P6. Ext.P7 order was challenged before this court in WP(C) No.11938 of 2010. In Ext.P8 judgment, this court directed the first respondent to reconsider the matter after affording

¶47

W.P.(C) No.27329 OF 2010 2

¶48

an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to take a fresh decision. A Review Petition was filed against Ext.P8 judgment pointing out to Ext.P9 circular issued by the Government. In Ext.P10 judgment this court modified Ext.P8 judgment and directed the first respondent to take note of Ext.P9 circular while deciding the issue. Subsequently, Ext.P12 order was issued by the first respondent confirming Ext.P7. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶49

Contention of the petitioner is that the reasons stated in the impugned order of the 1^st respondent is unsustainable, because levelling of the terrain of land will not cause any depletion of the ground water level or any environmental problems. The petitioner pointed out that opinion was sought for by the 1^st respondent from the authorities of the Ground Water Department and it was reported that there exists a well situated near to the property of the petitioner and that the indiscriminate excavation of earth will affect the availability of ground

¶50

W.P.(C) No.27329 OF 2010 3

¶51

water in the location. On the request of the petitioner, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed for this court to inspect the property. It is reported that the property contains consolidated and unconsolidated laterite soil remaining in 3 terrains. The Advocate Commissioner noted loose laterite soil seen piled upon the existing consolidated level. It is opined that, removal of such piled up mud will not effect the ground water table of the locality in any manner. However, it is suggested that in order to avoid excessive and indiscriminative removal of loose soil and removal of natural earth, necessary conditions should be imposed . The Advocate Commissioner had submitted the report on the basis of a joint inspection conducted along with the District Officer of the Ground Water Department. It is stated that since earth has already been excavated from the consolidated laterite surface removal of such unconsolidated loose earth will not affect the ground water level in the well situated in the colony

¶52

When the writ petition is taken up for hearing

¶53

W.P.(C) No.27329 OF 2010 4

¶54

learned counsel for petitioner made a limited plea based on the opinion expressed by the Advocate Commissioner and the expert that, he may be permitted to remove the soil collected on the existing consolidated laterite surface, so that he can utilise the land for further agricultural activities. I am of the view that such a limited relief can be granted in view of the situation prevailing, without permitting the petitioner to have further extensive excavations in any manner depleting the level of the land, which may result in lowering of the ground water table.

¶55

4 . Under the above mentioned circumstances, the writ

¶56

petition is disposed of by quashing Ext.P12. The first respondent is directed to issue permission to the petitioner for removal of the red earth collected in the property, which is piled upon the existing consolidated surface, by imposing strict conditions for such removal. The first respondent is also directed to prescribe a time limit for such works and further to have appropriate inspection conducted through any sub-ordinate officials to ensure that the removal of

¶57

W.P.(C) No.27329 OF 2010

¶58

¶59

earth is done strictly in accordance with the conditions stipulated. Orders in this regard shall be issued within two weeks form the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

C.K.ABDUL REHIM

JUDGE

smm

W.P.(C) No.27329 OF 2010 6

Muhammed Sherif v. Revenue Divisional Officer,Tirur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Sherif v. Revenue Divisional Officer,Tirur

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

Kallulla Parambath Kelappan Vs the District Collector,Kozhikode and Ors.

The Manager Sree Vidhyadhiraja Vidhya Vs the Government of Kerala & Others

Rejith Rajendran Vs State of Kerala

Reghu.R. Vs State of Kerala

Abdulla Vs State of Kerala

Alsteel Industrials Vs K.S.E.Board and Others