Nalloor Kunhammad vs The District Collector
2023 Latest Caselaw 1526 Ker

W.P.(C) No.21098 of 2014              1




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
      FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 30TH POUSHA, 1944
                           WP(C) NO. 21098 OF 2014
PETITIONERS:

     1       NALLOOR KUNHAMMAD, PETTINTAVADA, P.O.PARAKKADAVU,(VIA)
             NADAPURAM,
             PIN - 673 509.
     2       ABDULLA HAJI, PAZAYANGADI, P.O.PARAKKADAVU
             (VIA) NADAPURAM, PIN - 673 509.
             BY ADVS.
             SRI.C.VATHSALAN
             SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN
             SMT.THUSHARA.V


RESPONDENTS:

     1       THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KOZHIKODE, CIVIL STATION,
             CALICUT, PIN - 673 001.
     2       THE TAHSILDAR, VATAKARA TALUK, MINI CIVIL STATION
             P.O.VATAKARA
             KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 101.
     3       THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALAYAM POLICE STATION
             P.O.VALAYAM
             (VIA) VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 101.
     4       AMMAD HAJI ALIAS HAREEDA AHAMMAD, TRIPANGOTTOOR VILLAGE
             P.O.POYILOOR, THALLASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT,
             PIN - 670 101.



             R1 TO R3 BY SRI.JOBY JOSEPH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER


      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.21098 of 2014                   2




                                    JUDGMENT

Dated this the 20th day of January, 2023

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking the following reliefs:

(1) Issue a writ of mandamus and direct the 1 st respondent to consider

and dispose of Exhibit P3 in accordance with law.

(2) Direct the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of Exhibit P2 so

as to stop the removal of mud and earth from the property of the 4 th

respondent.

(3) Issue such other writ or direction which this Hon'ble Court may

deem fit to pass in the circumstances of the case.

2. According to the petitioners, they are residents within the limits of the

Tahsildar, Vatakara Taluk. The case projected by the petitioners is that adjacent

to the house of the petitioners, the 4th respondent purchased a property during

March, 2014 and after cutting and removing the coconut trees standing in the

property, ordinary earth from the property is being removed using JCB and tipper

lorry without securing permit from any statutory authority.

3. According to the petitioners, in spite of complaints filed before the District

Collector, Tahsildar and the Sub Inspector of Police within the jurisdictional limits,

no action was initiated, which persuaded them to approach this Court by filing

this writ petition.

4. Exhibits P1 to P3 are the representations submitted before the said

authorities. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that it would suffice if a

direction is issued to consider Exhibits P1 to P3.

5. I have heard, learned counsel for the petitioners Sri.Rakesh Roshan,

learned Senior Government Pleader Sri.Joby Joseph and perused the pleadings

and material on record.

6. Even though, it is stated that the 4 th respondent is removing ordinary

earth in his property and that the property is developed using JCB; there is no

case that the ordinary earth is removed from the property in question so as to

secure any permit from any statutory authority as per the provisions of the Kerala

Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015. Merely because a property is developed by

rearranging the ordinary earth for adjusting different terrains, it cannot be said

that the ordinary earth is removed from the property. Anyhow, since the learned

counsel for the petitioner submitted that the representations are pending before

respondent Nos.1 to 3, the Tahsildar, Vatakara Taluk, Kozhikode District - the 2 nd

respondent, is directed to look into the matter as to whether any illegality is

committed by the 4th respondent while developing the property; and if any

illegality is committed by the 4 th respondent alone, the Tahsildar needs to take

action by the law. However, I clarify that if the development activity has been

concluded by now, the issue shall not be reopened.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

                                                SHAJI P.CHALY

smv                                                    JUDGE





                       APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21098/2014

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS
                           EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE
                           THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
                           EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE
                           THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
                           EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE
                           THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
                           EXHIBIT P3(A)- TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT BY
                           THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR RECEIVING EXHIBIT P3.