Back
2009 Supreme(Online)(KER) 22468
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
V.GIRI, J
P.L.MOHANAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA & OTHERS – Respondent
WP(C)/22618/2009
SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.M.A.MOHAMMED SIRAJ SRI.P.PRIJITH, ADV. SRI.ISAAC KURUVILLA ILLIKAL, COMMISSIONER GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SUNIL KUMAR
The court established that proper assessment and classification of land are essential for granting mining permits under applicable regulations.
Headnote:
Mining - Quarrying Permit - Mine and Mineral Concession Rules - The court reviewed the renewal of a quarrying permit against the backdrop of land classification and established that due process must be followed in permitting such activities, emphasizing correct classification of land as crucial.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought renewal of a quarrying permit for land previously designated as 'Nilam', which the District Collector recommended re-classifying. The government initially rejected this proposal, leading to a legal challenge by the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the government's rejection lacked factual basis and failed to address the District Collector's report. It emphasized the importance of accurate land classification and directed the government to reconsider the application properly.
Issues: Whether the government correctly refused the request for re-classification of land and renewal of the quarrying permit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that the government must consider all relevant factual reports regarding land characteristics before denying applications for permit renewals.
Final Decision: The court quashed the government's rejection and ordered a fresh review of the application for re-classification and permit renewal.
JUDGMENT
Property having an extent of 66 cents in Old Survey Nos.
521/3 and 521/4, Re-Survey No.111/6-2 in Block No.10 of Kuttoor Village, Thiruvalla Taluk, belonged to one Mini Mol Philip. Petitioner and the others entered into Ext.P1 agreement for conducting quarrying of sand from the said property. It seems that certain rubber trees standing in the property were cut and removed. One of the partners of the firm, constituted by the petitioner also, obtained a quarrying permit, Ext.P2. But the period of validity of Ext.P2 was extended till 31.3.2007 and then an application was submitted for renewal of the same. It seems that the quarrying continued in spite of the expiry of the permit and the 4th respondent, the additional Tahasildar, issued a stop memo. Geologist, the competent authority to renew the permit, sought for the permission of the Sub Collector to renew the same. This was granted under Ext.P3, subject to conditions. In the meanwhile, the person in whose name the permit was originally issued, Mr.Syed Mohammed, retired from the firm. Petitioner and another acquired title to the property from where the quarrying was done earlier, as per Ext.P5. On the application for renewal of the permit submitted by the erstwhile owner and continued by the subsequent owners, the Geologist, the competent authority sought for the permission of the District Collector in this regard. Ext.P8 report was submitted by the Village Officer, presumably as part of the process for a report to be submitted before the District Collector. Ultimately by Ext.P11 communication, District Collector, after referring to the nature of the land in question, affirmed that the land was shown as 'Nilam' in the revenue records. Going by the actual ground situation, a re-classification of the land from 'Nilam' to 'Purayidam' was sought for.
2. By Ext.P13 order, the permission sought for in this regard was declined. This was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(C). 6505/2009. Referring to the report of the District Collector also, this Court set aside Ext.P13 order and directed a fresh consideration in the light of Ext.P11 report of the District Collector. The matter was re-considered by the Government and the request made for re-classification was rejected under Ext.P16, which has been challenged in the writ petition.
3. An Advocate Commissioner was deputed from this Court to conduct a local inspection and submit a report. The Commissioner has filed a report.
4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Government. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader.
5. A perusal of Ext.P16 order would show that essentially the Government has proceeded on the premise that the land in relation to which a renewal of the quarrying permit has been sought, is situated by the side of a river. The land was not extensive enough to generate a further 1000 MT of sand there from and therefore, intention of the applicant seems to be make use of the proximity of the land to the river and remove river sand unauthorizedly.
6. I am afraid that the approach made in this regard is not correct. Application for renewal of a permit earlier granted under the Mine and Mineral Concession Rules was referred by the competent authority to the District Collector and the District Collector had thereafter, by Ext.P11 sought for the permission of the Government to re-classify the land. The actual terrain of the land currently available and the question as to whether there are adjacent paddy fields or wet lands was considered and the District Collector reported that in the absence of any paddy cultivation or signs of the same in the land and the absence of any paddy field in the neighbourhood, taking note of the fact that there seems to have been Rubber cultivation years earlier, request was made for conversion of the land. Government does not say in Ext.P16 order that the factual details given in Ext.P11 are incorrect. Nor was there any other material, before the Government ind
