C.C.Pavithran Vs. State of Kerala

C.C.Pavithran vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Nov 01, 2013

~6 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1097180

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1097180
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Hon'Ble the Chief Justice Dr. Manjula Chellur
Decided On: Nov 01, 2013
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

C.C.Pavithran

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....dated this the 1st november, 2013 judgment manjula chellur, c.j.this public interest litigation came to be initiated in the year 2007 complaining decrease in the water level of wells in the surrounding area of fifth respondent-hospital on account of allowing the fifth respondent to draw more water than permitted, therefore, there is violation of the kerala ground water (control and regulation) act, 2002. according to the petitioner, on account of the respondent authorities permitting the fifth respondent to have two bore wells, the petitioner approached the court complaining that sanction of two bore wells of which only one bore well dug by the fifth respondent has decreased the water level in and around the houses of the petitioner and others which are situated at a distance between 50 and 90 meters from the fifth respondent-hospital. as a matter of fact, according to the petitioner, there were wells within a distance of 30 meters in the neighbourhood of the fifth respondent-hospital. but there is no wp(c).24855/07 2 factual conferment by the district collector as per exhibit p21 report.2. from the records it is noticed on earlier occasion a public interest litigation, w.p(c).no.32965/2006, came to be initiated seeking direction to the respondent authorities to enquire into the report at exhibit p1 and the same came to be disposed of as per exhibit p10 judgment directing the third respondent to consider the mass petition at exhibit p1 in the said case and proceed in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of the order. at the instance of the 6th respondent ground water department, kannur, making a detailed hydrological investigation as directed by the district collector, two points for drilling of bore well were suggested and factually one bore well was sunk by the fifth respondent. the petitioner himself has placed on record exhibits p11 and p27 challenging.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE FRIDAY, THE1T DAY OF NOVEMBER201310TH KARTHIKA, 1935 WP(C).No. 24855 of 2007 (S) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------- C.C.PAVITHRAN,S/O. BHASKARAN, PREMA VILLA, NEAR MINERVA STUDIO, CAMP BAZAAR KANNUR DISTRICT, KANNUR-671 001. BY ADVS.SRI.P.SHRIHARI SMT.P.VANI RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIATE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

2. THE ENVIRONMENT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DISTRICT OFFICE, SOUTH BAZAR ROAD, KANNUR DISTRICT.

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR.

4. KANNUR MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE KANNUR.

5. KALLALATHIL SREEDHARAN, SREE CHAND FAMILY TRUST, DEVO BHAVAN NEAR UNDER BRIGDGE, KANNUR.

6. THE DISTRICT GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT KANNUR. R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI R5 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.AJAY,SC,POLL.C.BOARD R1 AND R3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.I.DAVIS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON0111-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.

---------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No. 24855 of 2007 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st November, 2013 JUDGMENT

Manjula Chellur, C.J.

This public interest litigation came to be initiated in the year 2007 complaining decrease in the water level of wells in the surrounding area of fifth respondent-Hospital on account of allowing the fifth respondent to draw more water than permitted, therefore, there is violation of the Kerala Ground Water (Control and Regulation) Act, 2002. According to the petitioner, on account of the respondent authorities permitting the fifth respondent to have two bore wells, the petitioner approached the Court complaining that sanction of two bore wells of which only one bore well dug by the fifth respondent has decreased the water level in and around the houses of the petitioner and others which are situated at a distance between 50 and 90 meters from the fifth respondent-hospital. As a matter of fact, according to the petitioner, there were wells within a distance of 30 meters in the neighbourhood of the fifth respondent-hospital. But there is no WP(C).24855/07 2 factual conferment by the District Collector as per Exhibit P21 report.

2. From the records it is noticed on earlier occasion a public interest litigation, W.P(C).No.32965/2006, came to be initiated seeking direction to the respondent authorities to enquire into the report at Exhibit P1 and the same came to be disposed of as per Exhibit P10 judgment directing the third respondent to consider the mass petition at Exhibit P1 in the said case and proceed in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of the order. At the instance of the 6th respondent Ground Water Department, Kannur, making a detailed hydrological investigation as directed by the District Collector, two points for drilling of bore well were suggested and factually one bore well was sunk by the fifth respondent. The petitioner himself has placed on record Exhibits P11 and P27 challenging Exhibit P27 report of the District Collector. As a matter of fact, the District Collector has not made any personal inspection of the site in question including the pumping of water from one of the existing bore wells in the premises of the fifth respondent-hospital. Based on the report pertaining to pumping test conducted by the Ground Water Department, he has arrived at a conclusion as per Exhibit P27 WP(C).24855/07 3 that there shall not be any inconvenience or decrease in the water level in the neighbourhood of the fifth respondent-hospital, if the fifth respondent is restricted to pump water not beyond 3500 litres per hour with 1.5 HP motor. This report of the District Collector is based on the report at Exhibit P11 from the Ground Water Department and the conclusion and suggested portion clearly indicate there was continuous pumping of water in the existing one bore well for about six hours with 1.5 HP motor uninterruptedly which did not result any substantial decrease in water level in the surrounding wells. Therefore, Exhibit P27 refers to imposition of a restriction that there shall not be pumping of water more than 3500 litres per hour with 1.5 HP motor which would not affect the water level in the neighbouring wells. He has also put a restriction that there shall not be any increase in the capacity of the motor which is now being used in fifth respondent-hospital. In spite of filing this Writ Petition in 2007, subsequent to this report, there is no complaint of any nature that the fifth respondent-hospital has violated directions of the District Collector in any manner. On the other hand, the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent clearly indicates what test was conducted in pursuance of the direction by the District Collector who acted upon the directions at Exhibit P10 judgment. In the last five years WP(C).24855/07 4 from 2007, if petitioners were to suffer on account of drawing of water from the bore well of the fifth respondent, some material ought to have been produced or some attempt to get the matter disposed of or for interim orders ought to have been the exercise done by the petitioners. In the absence of such eagerness, one can presume that there was no hardship of any nature so far as decrease in the water level in the wells of petitioner or other surrounding wells of the fifth respondent. In the light of the exhaustive report of the Director Collector and the test conducted by the Ground Water Department, we are of the opinion, nothing remains for us to consider in this matter as a public interest litigation. There is no complaint of violation of any conditions imposed by the District Collector as well so far as fifth respondent is concerned till date. In the light of the above observations, we are of the opinion, the present Writ Petition deserves to be closed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE vgs

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2013 Same Parties C.C.Pavithran vs State of Kerala Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Hon'Ble the Chief Justice Dr. Manjula Chellur