Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
R.Shanmugasundaram – Appellant
Versus
District Collector – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. approval within prohibited distance violates regulations. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner contends layout approvals breach distance rules. (Para 3) |
| 3. respondents argue technical compliance of their approvals. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. court outlines process for addressing objections. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. writ petition disposed with directions to authorities. (Para 8) |
ORDER :
Challenging the impugned order dated 09.08.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent and also consequential direction to the respondents 2 to 3 not to grant DTCP approval for house site plots in favour of the respondents 7 to 10 or any other person within the prohibited distance from the petitioners quarry and crushing machineries situated at Karamadai Village, Mettupalayam Taluk, Coimbatore District.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner purchased the property in Survey No.456/3C1, to an extent of 1.17.0 Hectares situated at Karamadai village, Mettupalayam Taluk, Coimbatore District, through a registered sale deed dated 09.04.2003 on the file of Mettupalayam Sub-Registrar Office. The petitioner obtained a license from the Assistant Director, Department of Geology and Mines in proceedings Na.Ka.1716/Kanimam/202
Prohibited distances for building approvals near quarry sites must be observed as per statutory regulations and confirmed by court precedents.
Rule 36(1-A)(c) TNMMCR 1959 restricts layouts/building plans within 300m of quarries, not stone crusher units.
Point of law: Undisputed evidence to show that as per revenue records the existence of buildings and house sites, whereas in the case on hand, no revenue records have been produced to show that there....
Authorities must consider public objections and environmental impacts when granting mining permissions, reinforcing the jurisdiction of local governing bodies.
Non-operational crusher not 'existing' under layout rules despite consent; NOC and inspection prevail over formal license.
SEIAA must independently verify SEAC recommendations and provide personal hearing before rejecting EC in existing quarry clusters.
Impugned order set aside for non-application of mind; remanded for fresh inquiry on excess quarrying with hearing opportunity.
The court emphasized the importance of considering the potential impact of quarrying on the surrounding ecosystem and wildlife, as well as the existence of an alternate remedy under Rule 36-C. The de....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
