HITEN PATHAK Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. BC Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. DA Kaiyum, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. S Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department for respondent No. 1; Mr. P J Phukan, learned counsel for the Pollution Control Board appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3; Ms. D Das Barman, learned Government Advocate, Assam, for respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9; Mr. MK Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. KR Patgiri, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.8; Mr. M Khan, learned counsel for respondent No. 10; and Mr. J Rahman, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 11, 12 and 13.

(2.) According to the petitioners, the land on which the brick kiln has been set up is an agricultural land which is situated near a water canal called Khairajan. No-Objection Certificate (NOC) was obtained from the Pub Paka Gaon Panchayat without public hearing of local people to establish the brick kiln industry over the agricultural land. The brick kiln of respondent No.8 is a polluting one and its pollutants are discharged into the nearby water canal. Pollution Control Board had also overlooked the various provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Assam Brick Kilns Establishment and Regulation Rules, 2013. The brick kiln was started without obtaining Consent to Operate from the Pollution Control Board. That apart, there is also violation of the provisions of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. But the prime allegation of the petitioners is that the brick kiln was set up on a plot of agricultural land obtained by respondent No.8 on the basis of unregistered lease deed without reclassification of agricultural land for intended non-agricultural purpose and consequential transfer of such land by the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta. It is contended that such reclassification and transfer is prohibited under the Assam Agricultural Land (Regulation of Reclassification and Transfer for Non-Agricultural Purpose) Act, 2015.

(3.) By order dated 18.04.2018, this Court had issued notice both on the writ petition as well as on the interim prayer. However, by the order dated 14.03.2019, learned counsel for the parties submitted before the Court that the writ petition itself may be taken up for disposal at the admission stage. Accordingly, the case was listed for admission hearing on 26.03.2019 when it was heard whereafter today is fixed for delivery of order.