Allowed

Paily M.P. v. the District Geologist

Kerala HC17 Feb 2023WP(C)/1655/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an order denying transit passes for extracting earth to construct a residential building on assigned land. Court directed first respondent to consider request and pass orders within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Exhibit P7 set aside; respondents directed to consider petitioner's request for transit passes, conduct verifications and inspections, and pass orders within six weeks.

Paily M.P. Vs the District Geologist — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 28TH MAGHA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 1655 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

PAILY M.P. AGED 71 YEARS S/O PAILY, AGED 71 YEARS, MUNDETHUKUDI HOUSE, MARAIKKAL, KANNARA P.O, PEECHI, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 652., PIN - 680582 BY ADV BINOY VASUDEVAN

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, MINI CIVIL STATION, CHEMBOOKKAVU, THRISSUR, 680 020, PIN - 680020 2 THE TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS), TALUK OFFICE, PALACE ROAD, THRISSUR 680 020., PIN - 68020 3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER PEECHI VILLAGE PEECHI P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, 680 653, PIN - 680653 BY ADV APPU P S -GP

¶10

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

W.P.(C)No.1655 OF 2023

¶12

¶13

JUDGMENT Dated this the 17^th day of February, 2023

¶14

This writ petition is filed challenging Exhibit P7 order and seeking directions to the first respondent to consider the request made by the petitioner for transit passes for extracting and transporting ordinary earth from the property of the petitioner in terms of Rule 14(2) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015.

¶15

It is submitted that the petitioner is the owner of 19.40 Ares of land in Survey Nos.139/4 and 279/5 of Pananchery Village, Thrissur Taluk, Thrissur District and that Exhibit P1 is the copy of the 'Patta' issued in respect of the property. It is submitted that when the petitioner sought permission for removal of ordinary earth for the construction of residential house, Exhibit P7 order was passed stating that for removal and transportation of ordinary earth from an assigned

¶16

W.P.(C)No.1655 OF 2023

¶17

¶18

land, the permission cannot be granted. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on Exhibits P8 and P9 judgments wherein this Court had specifically held that in view of the absence of any interdiction against construction of residential buildings in the 'patta', the applications for transit passes for the purpose of construction of residential buildings can also not be refused.

¶19

The learned Government Pleader pointed out that there is some discrepancy with regard to the survey numbers in the application submitted by the petitioner.

¶20

An affidavit has been placed on record by the petitioner stating that Exhibit P1 'patta' was issued in the year 1972, with respect to properties in Survey Nos.2660/11, 2661/1 and 2661/10 of Panancherry Village, Thrissur Taluk, Thrissur District. Exhibit P2 possession certificate records the old survey numbers as 2660/11 and 2661/PT. It is submitted that the site

¶21

W.P.(C)No.1655 OF 2023

¶22

¶23

approval and building permit is also issued in respect of the same. It is stated that discrepancy, if any, in typing the survey numbers was only a mistake.

¶24

Having considered the contentions advanced and in view of the affidavit filed by the petitioner and in the light of the Exhibits P8 and P9 judgments of this Court, the reliefs as sought for are liable to be granted. Since there is no interdiction against the construction of residential house in the 'patta' issued to the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the request made by the petitioner for transit passes for the transportation of ordinary earth for the purpose of construction of residential house also cannot be declined on the ground that the property in question is an assigned land.

¶25

In the above view of the matter, Exhibit P7 is set aside. There will be a direction to the respondents to consider the request made by the petitioner for transit passes and conduct due verifications including as to the nature and identity of the property from the

¶26

W.P.(C)No.1655 OF 2023

¶27

¶28

Village Officer, conduct necessary inspections and pass orders on the request for the transit passes in accordance with law. Necessary shall be done within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶29

Sd/ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶30

SSK/16/02

¶31

W.P.(C)No.1655 OF 2023

¶32

¶33

APPENDIX

¶34

PETITIO	NER E	XHIBITS
Exhibit	P1	TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA BEARING NO.1493 DATED 03- 02-1972 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, LAND ASSIGNMENT, THRISSUR
Exhibit	P2	TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 04-01-2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit	P3	TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT 14-07-2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit	P4	TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT BEARING NO.A3- BA(67575)/2022 DATED 22-02-2022
Exhibit	P5	. TRUE COPY OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.A3-BA (297458)/2022 DATED 17-09-2022
Exhibit	P6	CONCESSION RULES, 2015 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO
		AS KMMC RULES, 2015). TRUE COPY OF THE
		APPLICATION DATED 21-03-2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit	P7	TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. 1027/6/4/22 DATED 18-10- 2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit	P8	. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.05.2022 IN W.P.(C)NO. 4782 OF 2022
Exhibit	P9	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.06.2022 IN W.P.(C)NO.16226 OF 2022
RESPONDE	NTS'	EXHIBITS: NIL

¶35

SSK //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Paily M.P. v. the District Geologist

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paily M.P. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santhosh Jacob E. Vs the Thrissur Municipal Corporation

Sainaba Vs 1. Panjal Grama Panchayath

Ajikumar N Vs Malayalapuzha Grama Panchayat

Susamma Joseph @ Omana Vs Kottayam Muncipality

Sai Krishnan.Vr Vs the Director

Jobin P O Vs the Poothrikka Grama Panchayath