Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 34629
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J
ADV.MATHAI EAPEN VETTATH – Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 12204 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: ADV.MATHAI EAPEN VETTATH
For the Respondents: SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY
Timely action on applications for land development is essential to prevent arbitrary administrative delays.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 - Rule 104 - Writ petition filed seeking permission to break rocks for developing a sports complex after failure of agricultural attempts - Authorities’ inaction deemed arbitrary - Direction issued for processing applications related to sports development. (Paras 1-9)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The authorities are instructed to consider applications without undue delay when a citizen seeks to develop land for personal use, emphasizing the need for timely approvals in development projects. (Paras 8-9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner is co-owner of land in Njeezhoor Village, aimed to develop it into a sports complex. Required permissions remain unresolved, causing project delays.
Findings of Court:
Directions provided for necessary approvals from relevant authorities to facilitate development of the sports complex.
Issues: The case primarily addresses delays in sanctioning permissions for the proposed sports development due to administrative inaction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed the principle that timely consideration of applications is crucial for citizens wishing to utilize private property for development projects.
Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions for procedural approvals.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of land ownership and intent to develop (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. challenges faced in obtaining project approvals (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court’s expectations on governmental responsiveness (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. court directs procedural follow-ups for the petitioner (Para 8) |
| 5. final directions for expediting decision-making (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 9th day of July, 2025 The petitioner is the co-owner of 14 Acres of land in Njeezhoor Village in Vaikom Taluk of Kottayam District. Though the petitioner attempted agriculture in the property, due to water scarcity, the agriculture failed. Rocks were falling down during rainy season causing threat to the local inhabitants. Subsequently, the petitioner decided to use the land for developing sports. The petitioner proposes to construct a sports complex in the land.
2. The Njeezhoor Grama Panchayat has given NOC and sanction for establishing a football court, badminton court and cricket ground. The Agricultural Officer and the Village Officer also gave positive reports in favour of the petitioner. However, the Geologist, whose permission was required for breaking of rocks, postponed any decision on one or the other ground. The petitioner states that due to the failure of the respondents to give clearance, the project could not be started.
3. The inaction on the part of the District Collector in not sanctioning the football ground is arbitrary. The project is delayed due to non-sanctioning of breaking rocks by the 1st respondent. The petitioner is therefore before this Court seeking to direct the 1st respondent to provide sanction to construct football ground after breaking rocks and levelling the property.
4. The 2nd respondent-Geologist resisted the writ petition and filed counter affidavit. The petitioner first submitted application to remove rock boulders to pursue agriculture in the land. While the application was being processed, the petitioner submitted yet another application stating that he wishes to develop his village by bringing sports and tourism projects in the property. As on date, three applications for development of land are pending for different purposes. The respondents therefore could not take a decision.
5. The Deputy Director of Tourism Department has informed that the Njeezhoor Grama Panchayat has not submitted any proposal before the Tourism Department so far. The Tahsildar, Vaikom has reported that complaints have been received to the effect that mining of rocks from the property of the petitioner would damage their houses. The 1st respondent has no authority to issue permission to break and remove the rocks in the property of the petitioner. The writ petition is therefore only to be dismissed.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.
7. The petitioner wants to develop the property into a sports complex. The Local Self Government Institution has granted NOC. For developing the land, rocks/boulders have to be removed and transported out which requires the approval of the Geologist and RDO. The Government Peader submits that for starting sports complex as part of Sports Tourism, approval of the Government of Kerala is required.
8. If a citizen intends to start a Sports Complex in his private property, the authorities have to consider statutory applications and take decision without much delay. The petitioner, who appeared as party in person, submitted that he is giving up his applications for developing the land for agricultural purpose and his application relating to danger of rolling stones and is confining his prayer to the development of the land for sports purpose. I find no reason to decline consideration of the application of the petitioner.
9. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:
i) The petitioner shall in writing withdraw his application submitted for development of land for agricultural purpose and also the application relat
