Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2013 12TH ASHADHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 11345 of 2013 (P) ---------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. JOY, S/O.MANJIYIL OUSEPH, AGED 5 YEARS, NETTISSERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR.
2. SEVY, S/O.MANJIYIL OUSEPH, -DO- 3. THOMAS, S/O.MANJIYIL OUSEPH, -DO- 4. POOVANTHINGAL RAPHEL, MUKKATTUKARA DESOM, NEDDISSERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK THRISSUR.
5. ALICE GEORGE, W/O.THEKKEKARA GEORGE, NELLANKARA DESOM, NETTISSERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR.
6. SREELAKSHMI CLAY WORKS, CHITTISSERY, THRISSUR, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER M.A.CHANDRAN.
7. PRATHIBHA CLAY PRODUCTS, ERAVATHUR, THRISSUR, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SMT.M.A.LALITHA BY ADV. SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR WP(C).No. 11345 of 2013 (P) :
2. : RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR ”
001.
3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR ”
001.
4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, OLLUKKARA, THRISSUR ”
001.
5. THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHBHAVAN, OLLUKKARA, MANNUTHY P.O. THRISSUR ”
021.
6. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NETTISSERY, THRISSUR ”
021.
7. THE GEOLOGIST, MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR ”
001. R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 11345 of 2013 (P) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS ---------------------- EXHIBIT P1: A COPY OF THE MINING PERMIT ISSUED TO THE 6TH PETITIONER ON 3-5-10 BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2: A COPY OF THE NOC ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 16 5-11 EXHIBIT P3: COPIES OF THE APPLICATION MADE BY 1ST PETITIONER IN JANUARY, 2013 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR PERMISSION/NOC FOR QUARRYING BRICK CLAY EXHIBIT P3(A): COPIES OF THE APPLICATION MADE BY 2ND PETITIONER IN JANUARY ,2013 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3(B): COPIES OF THE APPLICATION MADE BY 3ND PETITIONER IN JANUARY ,2013 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3(C): COPIES OF THE APPLICATION MADE BY 4TH PETITIONER IN JANUARY ,2013 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3(D): COPIES OF THE APPLICATION MADE BY 5TH PETITIONER IN JANUARY, 2013 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4: COPIES OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE EXT.P3 SERIES APPLIATION. EXHIBIT P4(A): COPIES OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4(B): COPIES OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4(C): COPIES OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4(D): COPIES OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5: COPIES OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF EXT.P3 SERIES APPLICATION OF THE 1ST PETITIONER WP(C).No. 11345 of 2013 (P) EXHIBIT P5(A): COPIES OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF EXT.P3 SERIES APPLICATION OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5(B): COPIES OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF EXT.P3 SERIES APPLICATION OF THE 3RD PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5(C): COPIES OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF EXT.P3 SERIES APPLICATION OF THE 4TH PETITIONER EXHIBIT P5(D): COPIES OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF EXT.P3 SERIES APPLICATION OF THE 5TH PETITIONER EXHIBIT P6: COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE MUKKATTUKARA PADASEKHARA SAMITHI EXHIBIT P7: COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE LANDS IN QUESTION EXHIBIT P8: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)8993/12 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT EXHIBIT P9: COPY OF THE PETITION FIELD BY THE 6TH AND 7TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : ---------------------- ANNEXURE R5(A) : COPY OF THE DATA BANK SHOWING THE LANDS BELONING TO THE PETITIONERS WITH THEIR SURVEY NUMBERS. ANNEXURE R5(B) : THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE. ANNEXURE R5(C) : COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, THRISSUR. //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J --------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 11345 OF 201.---------------------------------------- Dated this the 03rd day of July, 2013 JUDGMENT The petitioners are challenging Ext. P5 series documents issued by the Agricultural Officer reporting that the properties in which the petitioners intend to remove clay are notified as paddy land in the data bank prepared by the Local Level Monitoring Committee formed under the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). According to the petitioners, if at all the properties are included and described as paddy land or wet land the competent officer is entitled to permit removal of clay on such conditions as may be prescribed. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of this Court in Kairali Swayam Sahaya Sangam v. State of Kerala [2009 (2) KLT 181]. Reference is also made to Ext. P2 an order issued by the Assistant Director of Agriculture indicating that the lands are suitable for removal of clay. W.P.(C). NO. 11345 OF 201.2 2. A statement is filed by the 5th respondent producing the data bank particulars in respect of the properties which are the subject matter of the case and inter alia supporting the stand taken by the Agricultural Officer in terms of Ext. P5 series. It is not in dispute that the properties in which the petitioners intend to remove clay are included as paddy land or land suitable for paddy cultivation in the data bank particulars of the concerned Panchayath.
3. That being the situation no authority is entitled to permit conversion of the said land. Even the District Collector exercising power to issue appropriate orders for removal of clay cannot issue such orders overlooking the provisions of the Act. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners did not consider a question relating to removal of earth from a property included in the data bank of the concerned Panchayath.
4. That being the situation, I am of the view that there is justification on the part of the respondent authorities in not permitting the petitioners to remove the W.P.(C). NO. 11345 OF 201.3 clay from the properties included in the Data Bank of Local Level Monitoring Committee. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. However dismissal of the writ petition shall not preclude the petitioners to approach the competent authority for changing the data bank particulars in the event they are able to justify that the said properties cannot be used for cultivation of paddy. sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE JUDGE DCS