MATHEW ABRAHAM Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the owner of 75 cents of land situated in Sy.No.80/7-2 of Kanakkary Village in Kottayam District, has filed this writ petition complaining that the 8th respondent is carrying on illegal mining of earth and quarrying activities without any license.

(2.) Petitioner's case is that the 8th respondent has been removing red earth in large tipper lorries from the adjoining property of the petitioner. Petitioner was given to understand that the earth was being removed for conducting quarrying operations. Later on enquiry, when petitioner came to know that 8th respondent does not have any license or permit he submitted a complaint before the District Collector as early as on 06.01.2016 against the 8th respondent. The matter was referred to the District Geologist for enquiry. Petitioner submitted complaints before the Panchayat as well as the Revenue Divisional Officer, based on which, Ext.P7 report was submitted by the Village Officer on the complaint of the petitioner before the RDO in which it was stated that 8th respondent had been carrying out quarrying activities without getting any permit. Thereafter the Village Officer-the 3rd respondent issued a stop memo directing the 8th respondent to stop the mining activities in his property in Re-Sy.No.81/1 in Block No. 10 of the Kanakkary Village. Petitioner submits that one Sri.K.M.Abraham had filed an original suit in which the 8th respondent was the first defendant and the Munsiff Court, Pala by judgment in O.S.No.93 of 2010, decreed the suit restraining the 8th respondent and another from conducting quarry operations in 144 Ares of property belonging to 8th respondent situated in Re-Survey No. 81/1 and 81/4 of Kanakkary village. The petitioner points out that the plaintiff in Ext.P10 had filed O.S.No.41/2016 against the petitioner for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from causing any obstruction in using his property. It is pointed out that in paragraph 5 of Ext.P9 plaint it was stated that Sri.K.M.Abraham, the plaintiff therein had extended the road to the property of the 8th respondent for conducting a quarry on contract or partnership basis. Therefore it is stated that the 8th respondent is going on with the quarrying operations for the last several years illegally, which affects the property of the petitioner. Petitioner points out that the quarrying operations are being continued by the 8th respondent in various places including in the adjacent property of the petitioner even after the stop memo was issued.

(3.) The 8th respondent has filed a counter affidavit, admitting that he is conducting quarrying activities in several places for which the Panchayath had issued a license in the year 2012 for that year and explosive license etc. It is also stated that the 5th respondent had allowed him to conduct quarry by leaving 75 meters from the residential house of one Sri.K.M.Abraham, when a complaint was preferred by him, regarding the quarrying activities. According to the 8th respondent, the proposed quarry and the old quarry are not near the property of the petitioner. It is also stated that the 8th respondent was not intending to conduct quarrying operation in the old quarry and to start the new quarry and on that basis the 8th respondent had entered into a settlement with Sri.K.M.Abraham. However, he admitted that read earth was excavated, which according to him was to clean the location of the proposed quarry for inspection of the authorities. According to the 8th respondent he was having licenses for conducting quarry. At any rate the 8th respondent did not produce any permit for conducting quarry.