Disposed

Neethu T.R v. Chelakkara Grama Panchayat

Kerala HC7 Jun 2024WP(C)/4019/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought transit passes for earth removal from a 44.52 Ares property. The Court held the property must be treated as a single block for earth removal, making the District Geologist, not the Panchayat, the competent authority under the Minor Mineral Concession Rules.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to District Geologist to decide the application within two months.

Neethu T.R Vs Chelakkara Grama Panchayat — Mining and Natural Resources | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF JUNE 2024/17TH JYAISHTA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO.4019 OF 2024

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

NEETHU T.R, AGED 32 YEARS, W/O.P.G.KANNAN, PULIKUNNATH, POTTORE P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680581.

¶8

BY ADVS. BINOY VASUDEVAN SREEJITH SREENATH RINCY KHADER

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 CHELAKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT OFFICE, CHELAKKARA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680586.

¶11

2 THE SECRETARY, CHELAKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PANCHAYAT OFFICE, CHELAKKARA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680586.

¶12

3 THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, MINI CIVIL STATION, CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR, PIN – 680020.

¶13

BY ADV. AJITH VISWANATHAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 07.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

W.P(C) No.4019 of 2024

¶16

- 2 -

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Dated, this the 7^th June, 2024

¶19

Petitioner is the owner of landed property having a total extent of 44.52 Ares in Re-Sy.No.468/15-1 of Venganellur Village, Thalappilly Taluk, Thrissur. Petitioner is desirous of developing the said property, so as to construct ten residential units therein. Petitioner applied for building permit and a composite building permit was issued, vide Ext.P2. A development permit was also issued, vide Ext.P3.

¶20

The petitioner approached the 3^rd respondent/

¶21

Geologist for issuance of transit passes and movement permit, since removal of earth from the said property is required for developing the same. Consequent to the amendment to the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015, the authority for issuance of transit passes and movement permit, in connection with the construction of residential

¶22

house of an area less than 3,000 Sq.feet, is the local authority concerned. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to approach the local

¶23

W.P(C) No.4019 of 2024

¶24

- 3 -

¶25

authority, since the plinth area of each unit is less than 3,000 Sq.feet. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the 1^st respondent/Panchayat vide Ext.P5 for issuance of transit passes and movement permit. Alleging inaction on the part of 1^st respondent/ Panchayat, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.41703/2023. The same was disposed of vide Ext.P6 judgment, directing the 2^nd respondent to take a decision on Ext.P5 application of the petitioner, in accordance with Rule 14(4) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015. A contempt case was initiated alleging willful disobedience of Ext.P6 judgment. Pursuant thereto, the impugned Ext.P7 order was passed, wherein the 2^nd respondent had taken a stand that in the instant facts, the Panchayat is not the competent authority to issue transit passes and movement permit, since the entire property is lying as a single unit, without any demarcations and that earth has to be removed from the entire property.

¶26

W.P(C) No.4019 of 2024

¶27

- 4 -

¶28

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and learned Government Pleader on behalf of the 3^rd respondent. Perused counter affidavits filed by the respondents.

¶29

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is only desirous of getting transit passes and movement permit from the competent authority, whoever it is; and that she may not be left to the predicament of running between the 3^rd respondent/Geologist and the 2^nd respondent/Secretary of the Panchayat concerned for the same. Petitioner would submit that she is amenable to the decision being taken by this Court on the question as to, who is the competent authority to issue transit passes and movement permit in the instant facts. Learned counsel would emphasis that it was the Geologist, who was approached by the petitioner initially and that she was constrained to approach the 2^nd

¶30

W.P(C) No.4019 of 2024

¶31

- 5 -

¶32

respondent/Secretary of the Grama Panchayat only on instructions given by the 3^rd respondent/Geologist, pursuant to the amendment referred above.

¶33

4. Learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 would argue to sustain Ext.P7 order and would submit that a larger issue may arise, since removal of earth from an entire hill area is involved in the instant facts. It is only just and proper that such a call is taken by the larger authority, namely, the Geologist.

¶34

5. Learned Government Pleader also would leave the issue to be decided by this Court. However, a contention is seen raised that the petitioner ought to have sought for permit for construction of building for commercial purpose, rather than for residential purpose in the given facts.

¶35

6. Having heard the respective counsel, this Court

¶36

W.P(C) No.4019 of 2024

¶37

- 6 -

¶38

is of the opinion that the property having a larger extent of 44.52 Ares is liable to be taken as single block/unit for the purpose of removal of ordinary earth. It requires to be noticed that the question of division of the property arises only when the whole property is developed by removing earth, so as to make it divisible into separate plots, ultimately to enable construction of ten different residential units therein. As of now, the subject property remains as a single unit. The parties before this Court have no quarrel that soil is liable to be removed from the entire property, though the quantum of such soil to be removed varies between different areas. In such circumstances, it may not be proper to treat the subject property as different plots for the purpose of removal of soil and to relegate the matter to the hands of the 2^nd respondent/Secretary, who is competent to issue transit passes and movement permits, where the construction of the building does not exceed a plinth area of 3,000 Sq.feet. That

¶39

W.P(C) No.4019 of 2024

¶40

- 7 -

¶41

apart, treating the entire property as separate plots with smaller extents and permitting removal of soil, may not enable consideration of environmental issues/interests, if any, involved, which assumes significance on the basis of the concern raised by the Panchayat.

¶42

7. In the circumstances, the 3^rd respondent/

¶43

Geologist is directed to take up Ext.P4 application, to consider the same in accordance with law and to pass orders therein. Having regard to the fact that Ext.P4 was filed as early as on 03.03.2023, there will be a direction to the 3^rd respondent/Geologist to complete the exercise, within a period of two months from today, which the learned Government Pleader will communicate.

¶44

This Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶47

¶48

W.P(C) No.4019 of 2024

¶49

- 8 -

¶50

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4019/2024

¶51

PETITIONER EXHIBITS:

¶52

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 13-02-2023 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VENGANELLUR VILLAGE. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.SC4BA(84237)/2023 DATED 02-03-2023. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE NO. SC4-BA(84201)/2023 DATED 02-03-2023. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER THROUGH ONLINE BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 03-03-2023. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 17-11-2023. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.12.2023 IN W.P.(C)NO.41703 OF 2023. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.400682/BPT001/ GENERAL ADMINISTRATION/23/8622 DATED 24.01.2024 AND RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER THROUGH E-MAIL ON 30.01.2024. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY

Neethu T.R v. Chelakkara Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neethu T.R v. Chelakkara Grama Panchayat

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

Usman Sha Vs the Sub Registrar

K.C.Prakashan Vs Tahsildar (Lr)

Faisal Vs the District Collector

K.M. Aboobacker Vs State of Kerala

Fysal Rahiman K Vs State of Kerala

K.a.Justin Vs State of Kerala