Remanded

M.H.Sakeer v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Feb 2021WP(C)/818/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the District Geologist to inspect the petitioner's land to ascertain the nature of excavation. If intended for levelling or retaining walls without soil transport outside the land, the Court ordered the Geologist to permit activities. Otherwise, compliance with mining rules is required. The inspection must conclude within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent (Geologist) to inspect the property within three weeks and permit levelling works if no soil transport is involved.

M.H.Sakeer Vs the State of Kerala — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 13TH MAGHA,1942

¶5

WP(C).No.818 OF 2021(B)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

M.H.SAKEER AGED 51 YEARS S/O. HAMEED, MAMBAZHAKARAYIL HOUSE, KUTTAMANGALAM, PIN-686 691

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.BINU PAUL

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001

¶11

2 DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 030 3 INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OONNUKAL POLICE STATION, OONNUKAL ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 693

¶12

R1-3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

:2:

¶15

W.P(C).No.818 of 2021

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P2 communication issued to him by the 3^rd respondent, whereby he was asked to stop the excavation works undertaken on his land using an excavator and mini lorries. In the Writ Petition, it is the case of the petitioner that the excavation work on the soil was undertaken for the purposes of levelling the agricultural land as also for the purposes of constructing retaining walls to prevent soil erosion from the land in question. It is further submitted that inasmuch as there is no transportation of the soil from the land to any premises outside the land, there would be no requirement of complying with any provisions of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules or obtaining a development permit under the Panchayat Act and Rules. The limited prayer in the Writ Petition at this stage is for a direction to the 2^nd respondent Geologist to inspect the land and ascertain the actual situation and permit the petitioner to carry on his agricultural operations without any hindrance from the 3^rd respondent.

¶18

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶19

:3:

¶20

W.P(C).No.818 of 2021

¶21

learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶22

Through a report filed on behalf of the 2^nd respondent, it is pointed out that the petitioner was found to conduct levelling activities on his land without obtaining development permit from the Panchayat or without obtaining any quarrying permit under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act read with the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015. The communication issued by the 3^rd respondent is sought to be justified on the said reason.

¶23

On a consideration of rival submission, I am of the view that inasmuch as there is no clarity with regard to the nature of the activities proposed by the petitioner on his land, the ends of justice would be served by directing the 2^nd respondent Geologist to inspect the property of the petitioner to ascertain the nature of the activities proposed by the petitioner. If on verification, the 2^nd respondent finds that the intention of the petitioner is only to carry out levelling activities on land for the purposes of rendering it suitable for rubber plantation and for the construction of a retaining wall, which activities do not require a transportation of the soil from the said land to any premises outside the land, then the 2^nd respondent shall permit the petitioner to carry out the

¶24

:4:

¶25

W.P(C).No.818 of 2021

¶26

said activities under his supervision without insisting on compliance with any provisions of the Panchayat Act or the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules. If on the other hand, the 2^nd respondent finds that the petitioner proposes to transport ordinary earth to any premises outside his own premises, then he shall insist on the petitioner complying with the necessary formalities under the regulating Statutes. The 2^nd respondent shall complete the exercise of inspecting the premises of the petitioner and issuing suitable directions to the petitioner within an outer time limit of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy of this judgment before the respondents for further action.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶29

mns/02.02.2021

¶30

:5:

¶31

W.P(C).No.818 of 2021

¶32

APPENDIX

¶33

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶34

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 06.08.2020 FOR THE PERIOD 2020-21. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶35

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL

¶36

//TRUE COPY//

¶37

P.A TO JUDGE

M.H.Sakeer v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.H.Sakeer v. the State of Kerala

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

M. Damodaran Master Vs Mattannur Municipality

Nancy Sirajudeen Vs Shaji S.

K.Ratnamani Vs the Senior Geologist

Jitha.K.S Vs Thrissur Muncipal Corporation

Thomas N P, Vs Director

Nasar Vs State of Kerala