High Court Kerala High Court

C.V.Lalu vs The Director Of Mining And Geology on 25 June, 2009

Kerala High Court
C.V.Lalu vs The Director Of Mining And Geology on 25 June, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 8452 of 2009(B)


1. C.V.LALU, CHERIVUKALAYIL HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE GEOLOGIST, THE DISTRICT OFFICE

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,

4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,

5. THE TAHSILDAR, UDUMPANCHOLA TALUK,

6. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE,

7. THE VANDANMEDU GRAMAPANCHAYATH,

8. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

9. VARGHESE THOMAS, MUNNEL HOUSE,

10. ROY OMMEN, ELAPPUNKAL HOUSE,

11. GANESAN, KADAKKAL HOUSE, PUTTADY.P.O.,

12. JOSE PUTHUMANA, PUTHUMANAYIL HOUSE,

13. SHAJI.M.P., MALAKKARAYIL HOUSE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW

                For Respondent  :SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI

 Dated :25/06/2009

 O R D E R
                               V.GIRI, J.

           - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                  W.P. (C) No. 8452 OF 2009
           - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
            Dated this the 25th day of June, 2009

                          J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is a farmer having an extent of

149.90 Ares of land in different survey numbers in

Anakkara Village, Idukki District. He holds some wet land

which is used for paddy cultivation. He had approached

this court, complaining of unauthorized mining of sand

from paddy field and wet land in Anakkara and

Chakkupallam Villages in Idukki District.

2. Subsequent to the filing of the writ petition

additional respondents 14 to 30, were impleaded on the

allegation that they are also indulging in unauthorized

mining of sand from paddy fields and wet land.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the second

respondent, Geologist. Respondent 10to 13 have also

filed a Counter Affidavit. According to them they are

mining sand only from dry lands, on the strength of the

WPC.No. 8452 OF 2009
: 2 :

permit issued in this behalf by the Geologist.

4. Section 11 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy

lands and Wet lands Act read as follows:

11. Prohibition on reclamation of wetland:-

On and from the date of commencement of this
Act, the wetlands of the State shall be maintained as
such and there shall be a total prohibition on
reclamation of such wetland and removal of sand
therefrom:

Provided that nothing contained in this section
shall effect the removal of slurry and mud to maintain
the ecological condition of such wetland.

5. In so far as mining sand from paddy lands are

concerned, though the aforementioned Act does not bring

about a complete prohibition of sand from paddy fields, it

cannot be done except on the strength of a specific

permission granted in that behalf by the competent

authority. Obviously, the revenue Divisional Officer

cannot grant permit to dig sand from paddy lands except

for specified purpose. It shall not be granted to enable

the holder of the land or the applicant to Commercially

exploit the same. The features highlighted by the

WPC.No. 8452 OF 2009
: 3 :

petitioner requires emergent and serious consideration by

the Revenue Divisional Officer. He shall therefore cause

an enquiry tobe conducted as to whether there is removal

of sand from Paddy land or wet land by any of the

respondents or any other person, within his jurisdiction.

If he finds that sand is being removed from wet land he

shall proceed to take action as contemplated by Section

23 of the Act. By filing a report stating that an offence

has been committed by the concerned person as

contemplated by Section 23 and 25 of the Act. He shall

also take action to see that no sand is removed from

paddy land except that an authority granted on that

behalf by an officer not below the rank of the Revenue

Divisional Officer and that only for an appropriate

utilisation of the land for any commercial exploitation.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the respondents 1 to 6 had prohibited the use of Motor

pumbs for sand mining. Learned Government Pleader

WPC.No. 8452 OF 2009
: 4 :

submits that use for sand mining has been completely

prohibited. The Revenue Divisional Officer shall ensure

them such prohibition enforced strictly. Learned counsel

for respondents 10 to 13 refers to R10(f) and point out

that their application for renewal of permit granted

directing the pendency of the writ petition. Needful shall

be done within one month from the date of receipt of a

copy of this judgment.

7. Now the writ petition is disposed of. Application

for renewal shall be considered in accordance with law.

Writ petition is disposed as above.

(V.GIRI, JUDGE)

jma