Disposed

Markose T.G v. the District Collector

Kerala HC17 Jul 2017WP(C)/15301/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL petition exposed an unholy nexus where earth from petitioner's property was illegally removed to level hillocks for a National Highway project without permissions or clearance. The court found state officials negligent and beneficiaries guilty of illegalities.

What did the court decide?

No building or structure permission on the specific affected property for five years; State ordered to expedite recovery of royalty/penalty and conclude disciplinary proceedings against involved offic

Markose T.G Vs the District Collector — Mining and Natural Resources | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶6

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2017/26TH ASHADHA, 1939

¶7

WP(C).No. 15301 of 2017 (S)

¶8

PETITIONER :

¶9

MARKOSE T.G, S/O. THURUTHIKKATTIL GEORGE, VANIYAMPARA, IRIMPULAM DESOM, TRISSUR DISTRICT

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ

¶11

RESPONDENTS :

¶12

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRISSUR 680 001

¶13

THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PANANCHERRY VILLAGE OFFICE, PANACHERRY P.O, TRISSUR DISTRICT 680 652

¶14

THE GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, TRISSUR 680 001

¶15

THE DIRECTOR, MINING AND GEOLOGY, O/O THE MINING AND GEOLOGY. KESAVADASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶16

M/S. K M C CONSTRUCTIONS LTD., PANNIYAMKARA P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT PIN 678 683

¶17

VIBIN, S/O. LATE VALUMANNIL SASIDHARAN, VANIYAMPARA, PANACHERRY VILLAGE, TRISSUR DISTRICT PIN 680 652

¶18

MRS BRIJITHA, W/O. LATE KUNNAPULLY KURIAN, PANACHERRY VILLAGE, TRISSUR DISTRICT, VANIYAMPARA P.O 680 652

¶19

THE SECRTARY, PANACHERRY GRAMA PANCHAYAT,VANIYAMPARA P.O 680 652

¶20

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, O/O THE RDO TRISSUR 680 001

¶21

THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE DEVI KRIPA, PETTA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 24

¶22

*.R11. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001.

¶23

IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT NO.11 VIDE ORDER DATED 16.6.17 IN WP(C)

¶24

WP(C).No. 15301 of 2017 (S) :-2-:

¶25

** R12. THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, PIU, PALAKKAD, CHANDRA NAGAR, PALAKKAD IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT NO.12 VIDE ORDER DATED 28.6.17 IN WP(C)

¶26

**R13. CHACKO, S/O.LATE KUNNAPILLY KURIAN, KUNNAPILLY HOUSE, PANACHERRY VILLAGE, VANIYAMPARA DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT NO.13 VIDE ORDER DATED 17.07.2017 IN I.A.NO.10910 OF 2017

¶27

R7 BY ADVS. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH SRI.G.KEERTHIVAS R8 BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY R6 BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ R5 BY ADVS. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE R1-R4,R 9-R10,R 11 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R1-R4,R 9 & 11 BY SRI.RANJITH THAMPAN, ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL RADDL.12 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ANTONY

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

WP(C).No. 15301 of 2017 (S)

¶30

APPENDIX

¶31

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶32

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY

¶33

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT CERTIFICATE OF PANACHERY PANCHAYAT

¶34

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY 6TH RESPONDENT

¶35

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT, GRANTING PERMISSION

¶36

EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOGRAPHS EVIDENCING THE REMOVAL OF THE EARTH FROM THE PROPERTY OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT

¶37

EXHIBIT P5(A) PHOTOGRAPHS EVIDENCING THE REMOVAL OF THE EARTH FROM THE PROPERTY OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT

¶38

EXHIBIT P6 PHOTOGRAPHS EVIDENCING THE PRESENT LIE OF THE PROPERTY OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT AFTER REMOVAL OF THE EARTH FROM THE PROPERTY

¶39

EXHIBIT P6(A) PHOTOGRAPHS EVIDENCING THE PRESENT LIE OF THE PROPERETY OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT AFTER REMOVAL OF THE EARTH FROM THE PROPERTY

¶40

EXHIBIT P6(B) PHOTOGRAPHS EVIDENCING THE PRESENT LIE OF THE PROPERTY OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT AFTER REMOVAL OF THE EARTH FROM THE PROPERTY

¶41

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY

¶42

EXHIBIT P8 PHOTOGRAPHS EVIDENCING THE PRESENT LIE OF THE PROPERTY OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT AFTER REMOVAL OF THE EARTH FROM THE PROPERTY

¶43

EXHIBIT P8(A) PHOTOGRAPHS EVIDENCING THE PRESENT LIE OF THE PROPERTY OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT AFTER REMOVAL OF THE EARTH FROM THE PROPERTY

¶44

EXHIBIT P9 COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RDO TRISSUR

¶45

EXHIBIT P10 COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE OFFICE OF THE MINING AND GEOLOGY TRISSUR

¶46

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶47

ANNEXURE R2(a) : TRUE COPY OF FIELD MAP

¶48

ANNEXURE R2(b) : TRUE COPY OF THE GOOGLE MAP

¶49

ANNEXURE R3(a) : A TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING THE ACQUIRED PORTION OF

¶50

THE PROPERTY OF 6TH RESPONDENT, VIPIN AND SON OF 7TH RESPONDENT CHACKO

¶51

ANNEXURE R3(b) : A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT BEARING NO.B4.407/2015 DATED 31.01.2015. WP(C).No. 15301 of 2017 (S) :2:

¶52

ANNEXURE R3(c) : A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 04.02.2015

¶53

ANNEXURE R3(d) : A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.02.2015

¶54

ANNEXURE R3(e) : A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶55

ANNEXURE R3(f) : A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.B4-407/2015 DATED 06.09.2016

¶56

ANNEXURE R3(g) : A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.17.04.2017

¶57

ANNEXURE R3(h) : A TRUE COPY OF THE BILL, SIGNED BY THE PROJECT MANAGER OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT AND 6TH RESPONDENT

¶58

ANNEXURE R3(i) : A TRUE COPY OF THE GENERAL CONDITION OF CONTRACT AND CONDITIONS OF PARTICULAR APPLICATION, EXECUTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT AND THE 5TH RESPONDENT

¶59

ANNEXURE R3(j) : A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH

¶60

ANNEXURE R3(k) : A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.05.2017.

¶61

ANNEXURE R3(l) : PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE REDUCTION OF LEVEL OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, THE SON OF 7TH RESPONDENT, CHACKO AS ON 19.6.17

¶62

ANNEXURE R3(m) : A TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 15.5.2017

¶63

ANNEXURE R3(n) : A TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, DATED 23.05.2017

¶64

ANNEXURE R3(o) : A TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE GEOLOGIST DATED 06.06.2017

¶65

ANNEXURE R3(p) : A TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT

¶66

ANNEXURE R3(q) : A TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT

¶67

ANNEXURE R3(r) : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEECHI BY THE GEOLOGIST, THRISSUR AND THE RECEIPT NO.81139/2017 DATED, 20.06.2017

¶68

ANNEXURE R9(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.12.2016

¶69

ANNEXURE R9(b) : TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 5.1.17

¶70

ANNEXURE R9(c) : TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 12.01.2017

¶71

ANNEXURE R9(d) : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER 3.2.2017

¶72

ANNEXURE R9(e) : TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT BEARING NO.066976 DATED

¶73

22.12.2016

¶74

ANNEXURE R9(f) : TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF SITE INSPECTION MADE ON 14.02.2017 WP(C).No. 15301 of 2017 (S) :3:

¶75

ANNEXURE R9(g) : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR TO THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST, THRISSUR DATED 7.7.2017

¶76

ANNEXURE R9(h) : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR TO THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA DATED 7.7.2017

¶77

ANNEXURE R11(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 22.06.2017

¶78

ANNEXURE R11(b) : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT TO THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY DATED 22.06.2017

¶79

EXHIBIT R11(a) : A TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 22.6.2017

¶80

EXHIBIT R11(b) : A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 29.06.2017

¶81

EXHIBIT R11(c) : A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 21.06.2017

¶82

EXHIBIT R11(d) : A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WA 9 OF 2017 DATED 20.12.2016

/TRUE COPY/

P.A TO JUDGE

Navaniti Prasad Singh, C.J. & Raja Vijayaraghavan V., J.

¶87

¶88

W.P.(C) No.15301 of 2017

¶89

- - - - Dated this the 17^th day of July, 2017

¶90

JUDGMENT

¶91

Navaniti Prasad Singh, C.J.

¶92

1.Previous orders passed by this Court in this Public Interest

¶93

Litigation would disclose the unholy nexus between respondent Nos.5, 6, 7 and 13 and the State officials.

¶94

Under the garb of removing earth for laying out a Six-lane National Highway, substantial lands on which were hillocks, were cut and levelled. Earth recovered were removed and utilised elsewhere. The National Highway authority, the local Geologist, the Village Officer and the Tahsildar did not move a finger though they were cognizant of the happenings as evident from the materials produced. The illegal acts were perpetrated without obtaining any permission, without any proper

¶95

W.P.(C) No.15301/2017 -2-

¶96

environmental clearance, and without payment of royalty. The earth recovered after razing two hillocks was used ostensibly by respondent No.5, the Concessionaire, in his project. Respondent Nos.5, 6, 7 and 13 were the gainers from this overt and covert operation and the state exchequer was the loser. Upon the PIL being filed and notices being issued, State woke up.

¶97

2.We are informed that pursuant to our orders, various proceedings and enquiries have been initiated. Some are still in contemplation including proceedings against the Government Officials who slept all along and thereby aided and abetted the perpetration of illegalities. The net result is that respondent No.6 and respondent No.7, whose son is respondent No.13, and whose house was situated on top of hillock adjacent to the Highway being constructed, got blissful rehabilitation at the ground level by the side of the Highway. All this was achieved in

¶98

W.P.(C) No.15301/2017

¶99

-3-

¶100

defiance of all laws.

¶101

3.The learned Additional Advocate General for the State fairly states that the State has initiated appropriate actions against respondent No 5, the Concessionaire, as well as recovery proceedings as against respondent Nos. 6,7 and 13. Though we do not doubt the bonafides of the State, we certainly have apprehensions about its officials. Their past conducts speak for themselves. Had they been efficient and responsive, this situation would not have arisen at all.

¶102

4.We would therefore impress upon the State to take all necessary proceedings as against respondent Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 13 and its officials against whom notices for disciplinary proceedings have already been issued and conclude all the proceedings expeditiously. So far as respondent Nos.6, 7 and 13 are concerned, as they are beneficiaries of the gross illegality and unholy alliance, we

¶103

W.P.(C) No.15301/2017 -4-

¶104

would order that on their land with which we are concerned in this proceeding, no authority shall permit or sanction any building or structure of any kind for the next five years. That order would be an order in the shape of exemplary damages. However, if they have still some land uphill, they may be free to construct their own, but not at the ground level. We would expect the State to conclude the proceedings for realization of royalty and penalty and realize them expeditiously from the persons found responsible. We would also expect that disciplinary proceedings against the officers concerned for their purposeful negligence be taken up in all earnest and concluded at the earliest. We do not think that the authorities or officers of the National Highway authority can be fully absolved as well as what was happening was right under their nose. The National Highway authority also has to introspect in itself.

¶105

W.P.(C) No.15301/2017

¶106

-5-

¶107

5.Let copy of all the orders passed by us be forwarded to the Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram, The Secretary, Industries Department, the Director of Mining and Geology, the Director of Environment and Climate Change and the Regional Officer, National Highway Authority of India, Thiruvananthapuram. It is expected of these officers to take remedial actions in relation to such matters so that these events are not repeated.

¶108

With these observations, we close this proceeding.

¶109

Sd/-

¶110

Navaniti Prasad Singh, Chief Justice

¶111

Sd/-

¶112

Raja Vijayaraghavan V., Judge

¶113

ps/17/07

Markose T.G v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Markose T.G v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rupesh Ravindran Vs State of Kerala

Jose K.Mathew Vs Dhanalaxmi Bank Ltd.

State of Kerala Vs C. Balakrishnan

Gopika Govindan Vs State of Kerala

The Regional Transport Authority Vs Shaju

Sarojini P.G Vs State of Kerala