ANNAMMA POULOSE Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is concerned with the large scale removal of ordinary earth from her adjacent properties belonging to the respondents 7 to 14. The petitioner contends that such removal has been effected by reason of exemption available; both in the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1967 ( for short Rules of 1967) and the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules 2015 (for short KMMC Rules); the latter of which superseded the former. The exemption, for excavation of ordinary earth on the strength of building permits issued by the Local Self Government Institutions (LSGI's) is said to be creating regular instances of wide spread mining all over the State without any quarrying permit, thus resulting in deleterious consequences to the environment. The petitioner in the instant case, is pointedly concerned about the mining conducted by respondents 7 to 14, in her adjacent property; resulting in the loss of lateral support to her property.

(2.) The petitioner is the owner in possession of 6.10 Ares of property comprised in Sy.No. 126/13 of Poruvazhi Village in Kunnathur Taluk wherein the petitioner and her family are residing in a residential building. The 7th respondent owned 1 Acre and 23 1/2cents of property to the western side of the petitioner's property. A building permit was obtained by the 7th respondent for construction of a commercial building based on which large scale quarrying of ordinary earth was carried on in the property. But for excavation of earth no construction was effected thus rendering illegal the mining carried on; based on an exemption, the condition of which was not satisfied; is the argument.

(3.) The permission granted by the RDO to remove ordinary earth from the said property having an extent of more than 1 acre, upto 3 to 4 meters height from the road level was canceled as per Ext.P2, on the complaint made by the petitioner. The 7th respondent then approached this Court with a writ petition against the obstruction caused to the excavation and removal of sand from his property wherein the District Collector had filed a counter affidavit as is evidenced by Ext.P3. The District Collector had opposed the said activity and this Court refused to entertain the challenge and directed the District Collector to hear the parties and take decision in accordance with law as per Ext.P4. The District Collector had passed Ext.P5 refusing consent to extract sand from the subject land.