SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Ker) 1130

High Court of Kerala
V. Giri, J.
Lalu C V - Appellant
Versus
Director Of Mining And Geologykesavadasapuram & Ors - Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 8452 of 2009
Decided On : 19-08-2009

Prohibition on reclamation of wetlands and removal of sand from paddy fields and wet lands, and the requirement of specific permission for sand mining from paddy lands.

Headnote:

Unauthorized Mining - Paddy Fields and Wet Lands - The court emphasized the prohibition on reclamation of wetlands and removal of sand from paddy fields and wet lands, requiring specific permission for sand mining from paddy lands and strict enforcement of such prohibition.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a farmer, complained of unauthorized mining of sand from paddy fields and wet land in Anakkara and Chakkupallam Villages in Idukki District.

Finding of the Court:

The court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to conduct an inquiry into the removal of sand from paddy land or wet land and take action as per the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Lands and Wet Lands Act.

Issues: Unauthorized mining of sand from paddy fields and wet land, enforcement of prohibition on reclamation of wetlands and removal of sand.

Ratio Decidendi: Prohibition on reclamation of wetlands and removal of sand from paddy fields and wet lands, requirement of specific permission for sand mining from paddy lands, and strict enforcement of such prohibition by the competent authority.

Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, and the application for renewal of permit for sand mining was directed to be considered in accordance with the law.

JUDGMENT

V.Giri, J.

1. 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 10 to 13 have also filed a counter-affidavit. According to them they are mining sand only from dry lands, on the strength of the 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 6f 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. Insofar 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 petitioner requires emergent and serious consideration by the Revenue Divisional Officer. He shall therefore cause an enquiry to be 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 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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top