The main legal point established in the judgment is that the lands on which quarrying activities were being carried out were not forest lands for the purposes of invoking the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. The court also clarified that the quarrying activities did not violate the conditions of assignment and the quarrying leases were not liable to be cancelled.

Introduction:

These cases bring to the fore, yet again, the unending and vexed issue of striking a balance between the development needs of human society and the ecological necessity to preserve natural resources. The activity of granite quarrying is one that has become so rampant in the State of Kerala that the time has probably come for the State to review its existing policy with regard to grant of quarrying leases and permits and ensure that quarrying activities in the State are effectively regulated through the legislative measures that are already in place. A recent study (March, 2017) conducted by the Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi, finds that there are a total of 5924 Quarries in the State covering an area of 7156.6 Hectares. Central Kerala ranks the highest, in terms of the number of quarries and the area quarried, with 2438 quarries covering an area of 3610.4 Hectares. North Kerala has 1969 quarries covering an area of 1871.97 Hectares, and South Kerala has 1517 quarries covering an area of 1675.21 Hectares. 50% of these quarries are in the 0.02-0.5 Hectare category, 35.7% in the 0.5-2 Hectare category, 73 granite quarries with an area above 10 Hectare and 19 Quarries having an area greater than 20 Hectares. There are 78 granite quarries within 1 Km proximity of the epicenters of recorded earthquakes in Kerala. Similarly, there are 79 quarries with a total area of 85.83 Hectares within 500 metres from protected forests and 1378 quarries functioning within 1 Km from the reserved forests. (See: Paper titled "Mapping of Granite Quarries in Kerala, India: A critical mapping initiative; by TV Sajeev and Alex CJ; Forest Health Division, Kerala Forest Research Institute Peechi).

2. While the quarrying activities in respect of granite metal were being regulated through the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967, the latter Rules were superseded by the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015, which brought in more stringent regulatory measures to govern the grant of quarrying leases and permits. Notifications issued under the Environment Protection Act and Rules also envisage that quarrying leases and permits be granted only after a thorough audit of the environmental impact that such activities can occasion. It is apparent, therefore, that there are adequate legislative measures in place to regulate quarrying activities. Litigation in this area has, however, revealed the shortcomings with regard to the implementation of these regulatory measures.

Brief Facts:

In these writ petitions, save for W.P.(C).Nos.14639/2012, 17088/2011, 20532/2010, 32619/2015 and 40532/2016, that are filed by neighbouring landowners, the other writ petitions are preferred by persons who either own, or have rights over, lands in Pallichal Village in Neyyatinkara Taluk, in an area that is locally referred to as Mookunnimala, and hold quarrying leases for quarrying Granite metal. The lands in question were originally assigned to the predecessors in interest of the present owners, in terms of the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, 1960, [hereinafter referred to as the 1960 Act'] read with the Special Rules for Assignment of Government Lands for Rubber Cultivation, 1960. In their writ petitions, which comprise of two sets - the first of which were filed challenging stop memos that were issued by the respondents in 2012, and the second of which were filed challenging stop memos that were issued by the respondents in the year 2016 - they are aggrieved by the action of the respondents in interfering with the working of the quarries during the currency of subsisting leases, the terms of which are scheduled to expire only during the period between 2018 and 2022.

3. The stop memos that were issued to the various writ petitioners in the year 2012, appear to have been pursuant to the directions issued by this court in the judgment dated 13.08.2009 in W.P.(C).No.9605/2008,