LAWS(GAU)-2022-9-164

IMRAD ALI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

Decided On September 20, 2022
Imrad Ali Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ASSAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. D. Das, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Ms. M Barman, learned junior Government Advocate for the respondents No. 1, 4, 6 and 7 being the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, Deputy Commissioner, Darrang, Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Darrang and Circle Officer, Sipajhar, Mr. A Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 being the authorities in the Revenue Department of the Government of As5sam, Mr. S Barua, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 being the Pollution Control Board, Assam and Mr. A Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent No. 8 Md. Lutfor Rahman.

(2.) The 104 petitioners herein are all residents of village Sanowatari and Khalihoi under mouza Sipajhar in the Darrang district and most of them are farmers who earn their livelihood by cultivating their respective agricultural land. The petitioners are aggrieved to the extent that a brick kiln operated by the respondent No. 8 Md. Lutfor Rahman was established in violation of the Assam Brick Kiln Establishment and Regulation Rules, 2013 (in short Rules of 2013) and also it is having an adverse impact on the environment of the neighbouring agricultural land where the petitioners are continuing with the agricultural activities. The petitioners have raised two legal issues to the extent that no consent to operate the brick kiln had been issued by the Pollution Control Board (PCB) in favour of the respondent No. 8 and further the brick kiln which was established over an agricultural land, could not have been reclassified and converted for the purpose of non-agricultural use and thereafter establish and operate a brick kiln in view of the provisions of Sec. 4(1) of the Assam Agricultural Land (Regulation of Reclassification and Transfer for non-Agricultural purpose) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred as Re-classification Act of 2015).

(3.) Mr. A Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent No. 8 raises a counter contention that the respondent No. 8 established and operated the brick kiln after obtaining the 'consent to establish' from the PCB, Assam for setting up the manufacturing unit for which a certificate of consent to establish had been issued on 20/10/2020 and such certificate had been issued pursuant to the consent to establish given by the PCB, Assam as per their order dtd. 15/10/2020.