Dismissed

Prasannakumary, v. the District Geologist

Kerala HC21 Jun 2019WP(C)/7797/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought a mandamus directing the District Geologist to issue a mineral transit pass for removing ordinary earth from his property. The court recorded the petitioner's submission that the present writ would be withdrawn to pursue a separate challenge against permit conditions. The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn without prejudice to the p

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, without prejudice to the petitioner's rights to challenge the permit conditions separately.

Prasannakumary, Vs the District Geologist — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.7797 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

PRASANNAKUMARY,

¶8

AGED 39 YEARS, W/O. MADHUSUDHANAN PILLAI, M.S BHAVANAM, THENGAMAM, PALLIKKAL, PALLIKKAL VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA -690 537.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.M.G.SREEJITH

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, MINI CIVIL STATION, ARANMULA P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN 689 533.

¶12

2 THE SECRETARY, PALLICKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PALLICKAL, PAZHAKULAM P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 501.

¶13

3 VILLAGE OFFICER, PALLICKAL VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 501.

¶14

BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI MANU RAJ K.J- GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C)7797 OF 2019

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is stated to be the owner of 49.10 Ares of land comprised in Sy.No.797/4 in Pallikkal Village in Adoor Taluk, who had obtained Ext.P1 building permit and Ext.P2 development permit dated 21.05.2016 from the 2^nd respondent, who is the Secretary of Pallikkal Grama Panchayat, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1^st respondent to initiate action on the basis of Ext.P3 application and issue necessary mineral transit pass to transport ordinary earth from the petitioner's property; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 1^st respondent to conduct local inspection and to ascertain the quantity of earth that has to be removed from the petitioner's property.

¶20

On 14.03.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court passed the following;

¶21

“The learned Government Pleader would point out that, as per clauses (3) and (4) of Ext.P2 development permit, while excavating earth, the level shall not go deeper than the existing ground level; and no conveyance of earth from or to the plot is permitted since the permit is only for leveling. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks adjournment.”

¶22

¶23

WP(C)7797 OF 2019

¶24

A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1^st respondent, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. Paragraphs 3 to 5 of the said counter affidavit read thus;

¶25

“3. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner has already filed an application for issuance of transit pass on 29.08.2016. A true copy of the application filed by the petitioner on 29.08.2016 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R1(a) . Further, again on 11.02.2019 petitioner ifled Ext.P3 application seeking the same relief as in Ext.R1(a) requesting permission for transportation of ordinary earth from the petitioner's property in Survey No.797/4 of Pallickal Village, Adoor Taluk in connection with the construction of a building along with building permit and development permit issued by the Pallickal Grama Panchayat.

¶26

On scrutiny of the above said application the respondent noticed that, signature in the application, i.e., Ext.R1(a) dated 29.08.2016 and Ext.P3 are totally different. Moreover in Ext.P2 Development Permit it is clearly stated that:

¶27

“Clause (3): While EXCAVATING earth, the level shall not go deeper than the existing ground level.

¶28

Clause (4): No conveyance of earth from or to the plot is permitted since the permit is only for levelling.”

¶29

In the above circumstances this respondent is not in a position to consider the application submitted by the petitioner and the same was rejected vide letter

¶30

¶31

¶32

No.1795/DOPTA/M/16 dated 14.03.2019. A rue copy of the said communication, which is issued to the petitioner is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R1(b) .”

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 3.

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner proposes to challenge the conditions imposed in Ext.P2 development permit, which are referred to in the counter affidavit filed by the 1^st respondent, by invoking appropriate remedy. Therefore, this writ petition may be permitted to be withdrawn, without prejudice to the said right of the petitioner.

¶35

Recording the above submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, without prejudice to the aforesaid right of the petitioner.

¶36

Sd/- ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶37

Prasannakumary, v. the District Geologist

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasannakumary, v. the District Geologist

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mary Vincent, Vs Kochi Corporation

Anil Kumar.T.P Vs the Secretary

Shirley Philip, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Jishnu.G.Nair Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Leena.C.H Vs the Secretary

Saji Andrews Vs Joint Regional Transport Officer