Allowed

Fathima Crushers LLP v. the Tahsildar

Kerala HC9 Nov 2022WP(C)/23337/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner firm sought attestation of a Survey Map for quarrying. Respondent refused based on local opposition and environmental fears. Court set aside rejection order, directing Tahsildar to attest survey map within a month, noting final approval depends on environmental clearance.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order (Ext.P5) was set aside. The respondent-Tahsildar was directed to consider the petitioner's Survey Map and attest it in accordance with law within one month.

Fathima Crushers LLP Vs the Tahsildar — Mining and Natural Resources | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 23337 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

FATHIMA CRUSHERS LLP

¶8

9/129, M.G. SQUARE, THODUPUZHA-685 584, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER.

¶9

BY ADVS. PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU SAJITHA GEORGE NEENU BERNATH

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE TAHSILDAR, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK OFFICE, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM-679 322

¶12

ADDL.2 SAKEER HUSSAIN AGED 56 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED @ KUNHAN, THEKKUMPURATH KALATHIL (H) MANNARMALA P O, PATTIKKAD (VIA) MALAPPURAM - 679325

¶13

ADDL.3 BASHEER AGED 49 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED @ KUNHAN, KAKKOOTH (H) MANNARMALA P O, PATTIKKAD (VIA) MALAPPURAM - 679325

¶14

ADDL.4 HYDER ALI AGED 33 YEARS S/O. HAMSA THORAPPA (H) MANNARMALA P O, PATTIKKAD (VIA) MALAPPURAM - 679325 ADDL.5 RASHEED C.P. AGED 45 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED @ KUNHAPPANU HAJI, CHAKKAPATH PARAKKAL (H), MANNARMALA P O PATTIKKAD (VIA) MALAPPURAM – 679325

¶15

¶16

WP(C) No. 23337 of 2022

¶17

ADDL.6 UMMER KOZHISSERI AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED KOZHISSERI (H)MANNARMALA P O, PATTIKKAD (VIA) MALAPPURAM -679325 ADDL.7 ABDUL KARIM AGED 68 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED @KUNHAN, THEKKUMPURATH KALATHIL (H) MANNARMALA P O, PATTIKKAD (VIA) MALAPPURAM - 679325 ADDL.8 MUHAMMED AGED 77 YEARS S/O. UNNEENPUHAJI, CHAKKAPATH PARAKKAL (H) MANNARMALA P O, PATTIKKAD (VIA) MALAPPURAM – 679325

¶18

*** ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 2 TO 8 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 09.11.2022 IN I.A. NO.1 OF 2022**

¶19

BY ADVS. ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.) MEENA.A. VINOD RAVINDRANATH K.C.KIRAN M.R.MINI M.DEVESH ASHWIN SATHYANATH ANISH ANTONY ANATHAZHATH THAREEQ ANVER K. GOVERNMENT PLEADER(GP-1)

¶20

SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE GP

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

¶23

WP(C) No. 23337 of 2022

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

Dated this the 9^th day of November, 2022

¶26

The petitioner-Firm, which proposes to start a quarry in

¶27

4.9967 Hectares of land in Karyavattom Village of Perithalmanna Taluk, is aggrieved by the refusal of the respondent to attest the Survey Map pertaining to the property of the petitioner.

¶28

The petitioner states that the petitioner proposes to start quarrying operations in a property. For making an application for Quarrying Lease, a survey map with respect to the proposed area has to be prepared and is to be attested by the Tahsildar. The petitioner approached the respondent for attesting the Survey Map, as per the requirements under Rule 27(2)(d) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Construction Rules, 2015.

¶29

To the surprise and predicament of the petitioner, the respondent-Tahsildar has taken a stand in Ext.P3 communication

¶30

that local residents had demanded that no quarry should be

¶31

¶32

WP(C) No. 23337 of 2022

¶33

permitted in the area. The Department of Geology has also submitted a report opposing quarrying operations in the area. The Village Officer has also stated that no permission can be granted for quarrying operations.

¶34

The petitioner states that obtaining of a Survey Map is necessary for the petitioner to make an application for Quarrying Lease. At the first instance, an attested Survey Map is required. It is after giving such application that subsequent procedural requirements would follow. Quarrying operations can be started by the petitioner only after obtaining Environmental Clearance from the competent authorities. Therefore, the respondent cannot shut out the application at this stage alleging possible damage to the environment in the area.

¶35

The Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner submitted an application for attested survey sketch of Survey I/IA 2 of Karyavattom Village in Perinthalmanna Taluk, to produce before the Mining and Geology Department. When the Tahsildar, Perinthalmanna inspected the site, the residents of the locality

¶36

¶37

WP(C) No. 23337 of 2022

¶38

objected to the proposal for quarrying and they submitted a petition against the proposal. Therefore, the Tahsildar rejected the application. The quarrying proposed area is already marked by the expert team which conducted field study in affected areas in connection with flood 2019 as a land where quarry work is to be denied'. The Government Pleader submitted that by complying with the direction of the High Court of Kerala in W.P.(C) No.16426/2022, the Tahsildar, Perinthalmanna reconsidered the application of the petitioner and inspected the site on 31.05.2022. On the following grounds, the Tahsildar, Perinthalmanna rejected the application submitted by the petitioner on 29.06.2022.

¶39

(1) as a practice in every case a report is called for from the Village Officer concerned. Village Officer Karyavattam reported that in the quarry proposed area minor land slides happened in 2017, 2018 and 2019. quarrying in the proposed site will cause threat on the life and property of around 1500 nearby residents. (2) In a study conducted by the Revenue, Geology and Soil Conservation department in connection with flood 2019 it is found that the proposed quarrying area is an area where quarrying permission is to be denied. This study was conducted

¶40

¶41

WP(C) No. 23337 of 2022

¶42

according to the direction from the State Disaster Management Authority. (3) As per the report submitted by the Senior Geologist Manjeri, to the Mining and Geology Director Thiruvananthapuram, the proposed quarrying land is included in the 'land slide hazard zonation map moderate zone and they also reported that there is chance for further land slides.

¶43

6. Respondents 2 to 8 contended that the Mannarmala

¶44

Paurasamithi filed a representation dated 02.04.2022 before the Tahsildar pointing out the circumstances under which the Mining and Geology Department refused to give permission earlier and hence the Tahsildar kept the matter pending. But, suppressing all these, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.16246/2022 seeking a direction to the respondent to process the requests made by the petitioner to issue an attested survey sketch with regard to the proposed quarrying area without impleading necessary parties. This Court disposed of the writ petition by judgment dated 24.05.2022 directing the Tahsildar to duly conduct site inspection and to take appropriate steps on the

¶45

representation given by the petitioner. The judgment was rendered

¶46

¶47

WP(C) No. 23337 of 2022

¶48

because the actual facts were not brought to the notice of this Court. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.05.2022 of this Court in W.P.(C.) No.16246/2022, the additional respondents 2 to 6 herein filed a petition for review of the judgment. When the review petition came up for hearing, the review petition was closed after recording the submission by the Government Pleader that the request made by the petitioner for survey sketch had been considered and order rejecting the request has been passed.

¶49

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents. 8.

¶50

The petitioner has approached the respondent for attesting a Survey Map, which is the first stage of submitting an application for Quarrying Lease. Even if a quarrying lease is to be granted to the petitioner, that will be only after obtaining Environmental Clearance and other statutory permissions from the authorities who are competent to decide the desirability of starting quarrying operations in any area. At this stage, the respondent is

¶51

not expected to make a judgment over the desirability of the

¶52

¶53

WP(C) No. 23337 of 2022

¶54

petitioner's proposed project.

¶55

In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of setting aside Ext.P5 and directing the respondent-Tahsildar to consider the petitioner's Survey Map and take steps to attest the same in accordance with law. This shall be done within a period of

¶56

one month. It is made clear that this Court has not made any finding on merit, on the entitlement of the petitioner to get Environmental Clearance or Quarrying Lease.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH

JUDGE

ams/09.11.2022

WP(C) No. 23337 of 2022

¶63

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23337/2022

¶64

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶65

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 27/8/2021 ISSUED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY TO THE EFFECT THAT THE PROPOSED AREA IS DEMARCATED AND INSTALLED WITH PILLARS Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT 27/8/2021 REQUESTING TO ATTEST THE SURVEY MAP WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED AREA Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 21/3/2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN WPC ¸ NO.16246/2022 DT 24/5/2022 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 29/6/2022 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER DT 29/3/2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DIRECTOR, MINING & GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.8560/M3/2018ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR, MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE GEOLOGIST DT 15/01/2020 RECEIVED UNDER RTI ACT

¶66

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE

¶67

ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.05.2022 IN RP NO.(FILING NO) 552/2022 IN WPC NO.16246/2022

Fathima Crushers LLP v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fathima Crushers LLP v. the Tahsildar

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

Shaji N.R Vs Sri. A.M. Naisam

M/S. C.I. Constructions Vs Ajit Kumar IAS

Jayalakshmi.K., Vs State of Kerala

V.I. John Vs Vishnu Raj

Alex v Luke, Vs District Collector

Delphi Cherian Vs the Geologist