ROY T T Vs. RAMAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these writ petitions, save W.P.(C).No.8729/2016, the petitioners challenge the legality of the business of a Partnership Firm, under the name and style of "Matha Granites" (which name is used in this judgment to refer to the firm and/or its partners), in conducting a quarry and a crusher unit in approximately 22 acres of land falling in Sy.Nos.878/1, 878/2, 879/2 and 881/1 of Memury Village coming under the territorial limits of Ramamangalam Grama Panchayat. While the activities carried on by the said Firm are alleged to be in violation of the statutory Rules governing quarrying and crushing activities, it is also the case of the writ petitioners that the said Firm, in the course of carrying on quarrying operations, has damaged and destroyed a Panchayat road known as "Parambarakkadu Manjappallykadu road" or "Kodukuthymala Manjappallykadu road". For the sake of convenience, the brief reference to facts and exhibits is from W.P. (C).No.8813/2016.

(2.) The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.8813/2016 is stated to be an artist by profession and the President of the Parambarakkad Paura Samathy, whose members belong to the Scheduled Caste community, and are stated to be living in a Harijan settlement colony in Parambarakkad - Kodukuthymala. It is his case that the Kodukuthymala Manjappallykadu road, which is also known as the "Parambarakkadu Manjappallykadu road" was constructed some time in 1972, consequent to land owners surrendering their lands to the Panchayat for the same. It is stated that the road was constructed, and thereafter handed over to the Ramamangalam Panchayat, which subsequently maintained the road. In 1993, the 4th respondent firm Matha Granites started a quarrying unit on the western and northern side of the road, and a crusher unit and its office on the eastern side of the said road. It is alleged that, in the course of the quarrying activities carried on by the said Firm, they demolished the existing panchayat road that was passing through their property, and thereafter they constructed another road on the eastern boundary of their property for use by the petitioner and others. While the petitioner objected to the change in alignment of the road by the 4th respondent, it is also stated that the 4th respondent obtained a location sketch from the Village Officer for obtaining an Environmental Clearance Certificate. Thereupon, alleging that there was an erroneous noting of a private road as a 'panchayat road' in the said sketch provided by the Village Officer, the 4th respondent approached this Court through W.P.(C).No.10296/2015, seeking a direction to the Village Officer to consider their representation for correcting the sketch so as to avoid any reference to a panchayat road passing through their property. This Court, while considering the said writ petition, took note of the submission of the learned Standing counsel for the Ramamangalam Grama Panchayat, that the Panchayat was not claiming any right over the said road, and further, that the road in question was not included in the road register of the Panchayat, and allowed the writ petition, by quashing the sketch issued by the Village Officer, and directing the Village Officer to pass orders on the representation preferred by Matha Granites, after obtaining reports from the Panchayat with regard to ownership of the private road constructed through the middle of the Firm's property.

(3.) In an appeal preferred by one Santhosh K.G., a resident of the locality, against the judgment in W.P.(C).No.10296/2015, a Division Bench of this Court chose not to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge, save to the extent of affording the appellant an opportunity to submit a representation before the Village Officer, together with any material to support his case, and directing the Village Officer to decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation of the learned Single Judge in the judgment dated 15.7.2015. The judgment of the Division Bench is produced as Ext.P6 in the writ petition.