SEBASTIAN.V.J Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner holds a land in Nilambur Village. He obtained a permit to construct a building in the said land from Nilambur Municipality. Ext.P2 is the building permit obtained by the petitioner. Ext.P2 is valid till 04.12.2021. Immediately after obtaining Ext.P2 building permit, the petitioner obtained a development permit also from the Municipality. Ext.P3 is the development permit. In terms of Ext.P3, the petitioner was granted permission to develop the land subject to the conditions mentioned therein including the condition that the land development is to be done within five days after obtaining permission from the Mining and Geology Department. On the application of the petitioner, the Geologist concerned has issued Ext.P4 order thereafter to remove ordinary earth from the land for undertaking the construction. The quantity of ordinary earth permitted to be removed for the said purpose is 451 cubic meters. After Ext.P4 permission, the petitioner preferred an application before the Geologist seeking permission to remove clay rock [1] in the land also, for the purpose of undertaking the construction. On the said application, the Geologist issued Ext.P5 communication to the petitioner stating that if the petitioner is possessing the required building permit from the local authority for the purpose of constructing the building proposed by him, the permission of the Mining and Geology Department is required for the purpose of levelling the land. It is stated in Ext.P5 that on the strength of the building permit and development permit obtained by the petitioner from the local authority, he is entitled to level the land for the purpose of undertaking the construction. The petitioner was, however, cautioned by the Geologist in Ext.P5 communication that the permission of the department is required for removing minerals from the land. The case set out by the petitioner in the writ petition is that while the petitioner was carrying out the levelling work, the fifth respondent, Village Officer intervened and issued Ext.P6 stop memo stating that the conduct of the petitioner in removing the clay rock using machines would affect the environment and he should therefore stop the activity forthwith. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P6 stop memo. According to the petitioner, insofar as he has obtained permission from the Geologist to level the land by removing even the clay rock, the fifth respondent has no authority to interdict the activity undertaken by the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition.

(2.) A report has been filed by the fifth respondent in the matter stating, among others, that Ext.P6 stop memo has been issued in exercise his power under Section 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulations and Development) Act, 1957 (the Act). It is also stated by the fifth respondent in the report that on 08.10.2020 when he visited the land of the petitioner, he found that the term of the development permit obtained from the Municipality had expired and that the activity undertaken by the petitioner is harmful to the nature. The relevant paragraphs of the report read thus:

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.