Dismissed

State of Kerala v. Sebastin V.J.

Kerala HC4 Feb 2021RP/14/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a review petition filed by revenue authorities. The original judgment quashed a stop memo issued to a petitioner for removing ordinary earth and clay rock during land development, ruling no mining permission was required except mineral transit passes. The review petition contested a specific observation regarding the Government Pleader's arguments, but the court held this did n

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed; original order quashing the stop memo remains.

State of Kerala Vs Sebastin V.J. — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 15TH MAGHA,1942

¶5

RP.No.14 OF 2021 IN WP(C)NO.21560/2020

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.12.2020 IN WP(C)NO.21560/2020(T) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C):

¶8

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695001.

¶9

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION,PIN-676505.

¶10

3 THE GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE, MINING ANG GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676517.

¶11

4 THE TAHSILDAR, NILAMBUR TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-679329.

¶12

5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NILAMBUR VILLAGE, NILAMBUR POST, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-679329.

¶13

ADV.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

R.P.No.14 of 2021 in W.P.(C) No.21560 of 2020

¶15

¶16

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN W.P.(C):

¶17

SEBASTIN V.J., AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.LATE JOSEPH, VADAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MYLADI, NILAMBUR POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-679329.

¶18

ADV.A.V.JAMES

¶19

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

R.P.No.14 of 2021 in W.P.(C) No.21560 of 2020 3

¶21

R.P.No.14 of 2021

¶22

¶23

Writ Petition (C) No.21560 of 2020

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The respondents in the writ petition are the petitioners in the review petition. The parties and documents are referred to in this order, as they appear in the writ petition for convenience.

¶26

The petitioner obtained permits from the concerned Municipality to develop a land owned by him and also to construct a building therein. The development permit granted to the petitioner was subject to the condition that he should obtain permission of the Mining and Geology Department before undertaking the proposed development

¶27

R.P.No.14 of 2021 in W.P.(C) No.21560 of 2020 4

¶28

work. The petitioner therefore, obtained Ext.P4 permission from the concerned Geologist to remove ordinary earth from the land for the purpose of putting up the construction proposed. While undertaking the development work, it was found that the clay rock deposit in the land also needs to be removed for the construction proposed. The matter was brought to the notice of the Geologist and the Geologist then issued Ext.P5 communication to the petitioner stating that permission of the Mining and Geology Department is not necessary for levelling the land, if the petitioner does not intend to remove mineral from the land. Accordingly, the petitioner continued to undertake the development work and while so, the concerned Village Officer intervened and issued Ext.P6 stop memo alleging that the conduct of the petitioner in removing clay rock would affect the environment adversely. The writ petition was instituted challenging Ext.P6 stop memo.

¶29

R.P.No.14 of 2021 in W.P.(C) No.21560 of 2020 5

¶30

A report has been filed by the Village Officer in

¶31

the matter stating that when he visited the land of the petitioner on 08.10.2020, it was found that the term of the development permit obtained by the petitioner had expired; that the activity undertaken by the petitioner is detrimental to the environment and that he has therefore issued Ext.P6 stop memo in exercise his power under Section 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

¶32

At the time of hearing, the learned Government Pleader reiterated the stand taken by the Village Officer in Ext.P6 memo as also in the report filed by him in the matter and gave emphasis to the reason stated in the report that the petitioner was not holding a valid development permit.

¶33

This court found that there is no requirement in the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,

¶34

R.P.No.14 of 2021 in W.P.(C) No.21560 of 2020 6

¶35

1957 as also in the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 for a person who is developing a land for the purpose of putting up a building, to obtain any kind of permission from the competent authorities other than obtaining mineral transit passes under the Kerala Minerals (Prevention of illegal mining, storage and transportation) Rules, 2015, if ordinary earth needs to be removed from the land. This court rejected the contention taken by the Government Pleader that the petitioner was not holding a valid development permit at the relevant time, and consequently quashed Ext.P6 stop memo. The review petition is filed on the ground that the statement in paragraph 4 of the judgment that the learned Government Pleader did not attempt to support Ext.P6 stop memo on any grounds referred to in Ext.P6, except pointing out that the petitioner was not holding a valid development permit is incorrect. It is stated in the review petition that the learned

¶36

R.P.No.14 of 2021 in W.P.(C) No.21560 of 2020 7

¶37

Government Pleader has supported Ext.P6 order on the reasons stated in Ext.P6 and also in the report filed in the matter.

¶38

True, the learned Government Pleader has reiterated at the time of hearing, the stand taken by the Village Officer in Ext.P6 as also in the report filed by him in the matter. But, as noted, the only ground on which he has given emphasis was the ground concerning the validity of the development permit and it is on account of the said reason that the observation pointed out in the review petition has been made in the judgment. The aforesaid observation, in the facts and circumstances of the case, does not confer on the respondents a right to seek review of the judgment. In the said view of the matter, there is no merit in the review petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶39

Sd/P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE

¶40

tgs

State of Kerala v. Sebastin V.J.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala v. Sebastin V.J.

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

Kalayanparambu Residents Association, Vs T. Anupama

Anoop Paul, Vs State of Kerala

Jackson Raphael K. M. Vs State of Kerala

B.S.Satheesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Ranjit.E.B., Vs North Paravur Municipality

Unnikrishnan Vs Mavelikara Municipality