BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL

SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

Application No.142 of 2015

In the matter of

Mrs.Lekha,

Therani, Anavoor P.O.

Thiruvananthapuram. .. Applicant

1.The District Collector,

Thiruvanathapuram.

2. The Taluk Officer,

Neyyattinkara, .

3. The Village Officer, Anavoor

4. The Director,

Mining and Geology Department,

Thiruvananthapuram.

5. M.S. Riyas, Kollam .. Respondents

Legal Practitioner for the applicant Mr.K. Venkatesan Legal Practitioners for the respondents Smt. Suvitha A.S. for R1 to R4 M/s.Kamalesh Kannan & Sai Sathiya Jith for R5 ------

9th December, 2015

------

This application is filed to direct respondent Nos.1 to 4 not to grant permission to the 5th respondent for carrying out quarrying operations at the land measuring 4 acres belonging to the 5th respondent bearing Resurvey Nos.115/4,

115/5, 115/8, 105/3, 117/13, 118/1, 117/2, 116/20 and 116/26 and at Tharisu land measuring an extent of 3.5 acres in Resurvey Nos.115/1 and 115/7 in Block No. 38,

Kokkattupura, Anavoor Village, Thiruvananthapuram District.

2. The applicant who is a resident of Survey No.117/1 at Anavoor Village has filed this application stating that 5th respondent by his letter dated 8.3.2015 addressed to the 1st respondent District Collector has sought permission for mining and setting up of a quarry at Government Tharisu land in Re-survey No. 115/1 and 115/7. It is also stated that the 3rd respondent Village Officer in his letter has informed that the

5th respondent has owned 4 acres of land in other Survey Numbers, as stated above.

The proposed quarry operations at Kokkattupura is ecologically fragile and religiously sacred will cause pollution to the property. It is the case of the applicant that if such permission is granted to the 5th respondent, he will break three big rocks having an average height of 75 meters and spoil the fragile area and the lease activities will affect the nearby residents including the applicant and therefore he has filed the present application, as stated above.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant would vehemently submit that based on the proceedings of the Tahsildar dated 14.05.2015 wherein the

Tahsildar, after inspecting the said Survey Nos.115/1 & 115/7 has stated that there are no houses suitable for living or worship centres and electrical lines apart from government’s drinking water projects and schools within 100 meter radius and therefore he has reported that barring the area of 50 meter radius of the unauthorised construction in Re-Survey No.115/1 permission may be accorded for

sanction of lease of government rocky land in Survey Nos.115/1 and 115/7 for quarrying, subject to the rules and regulations of the government already in force.

4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, the 5th respondent is an encroacher and influential person and on the basis of the above said recommendation of the Tahsildar dated 14.05.2015, the 4th respondent in all probabilities may grant lease in favour of the 5th respondent which will be hazardous to the environment in the area. Therefore, he would submit that even though as on date there is no cause of action for her, in as much as the Tahsildar has clearly recommended to the District Collector for the purpose of grant of lease, if the lease is granted that will be creating environmental hazard and therefore as a matter of preventive measure, further action by the District Collector should be resisted.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent has submitted that as on date the 5th respondent is not carrying on any quarrying activity and in fact he has sought for permission for the grant of lease in respect of the area and awaiting permission from the authorities. He has also made it very clear that the 5th respondent is not carrying on any quarrying activity and he will not carry on any quarrying activity unless and until lease is granted in her favour.

Therefore, according to him the statement given by the applicant is totally misconceived and premature. He has also submitted that it is not as if the applicant has no remedy available even in the event of lease being granted in favour of the 5th respondent and therefore he has submitted that this application should be dismissed at this stage.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant has also made another request that the illegal quarrying is going on and appointment of an advocate commissioner will prove the factual matrix as such.

7. Having heard both respective counsel and having referred to the documents and pleadings, we are of the considered view that on the admitted factual matrix, as on date the 5th respondent has not been granted any lease by the authorities under the Mines and Mineral Rules in respect of Survey Nos.115/1 and 115/7 and therefore as on date actually there is no cause of action in favour of the applicant. In any event, if the applicant shows that her application for lease is correct and proper as per law and the 5th respondent or any other person is illegally quarrying, in our considered view, it is the foremost duty of the 4th respondent as well as the 1st respondent District Collector to see that such illegal quarrying activity is prevented at any cost. It is not only to prevent any environmental hazard, but also to see that the

Government is not putting to any financial loss. Therefore, we have no hesitation to direct the 1st and 4th respondents to see that until legal permission is granted, no person in the area, including the 5th respondent, shall be permitted to do any quarrying activities in Resurvey Nos.115/1 and 115/7. In the event of the 1st and

4th respondents finding that such illegal mining is going on, the said respondents shall take immediate legal action, both civil and criminal action against the persons, in the manner known to law.

8. We also make it clear that the District Collector while considering the letter of the Tahsildar dated 14.05.2015 recommending issuance of lease in respect of

Resurvey Nos.115/1 and 115/7 except certain areas which have been mentioned in the said letter shall give opportunity to the applicant to raise her objections and consider the same in its proper perspective and pass appropriate orders.

9. We also make it clear that in the event of lease being granted in favour of the 5th respondent or any other person if it is advised, it is always open to the applicant to object the same by resorting to legal remedies. Needless to say that if

any objection is raised, by virtue of lease which may be granted in favour of 5th respondent, it is always open to the applicant to approach this Tribunal for filing necessary application.

With the above directions, the application stands disposed of. There will be no order as to cost.

Justice Dr.P. Jyothimani

Judicial Member

Prof Dr.R. Nagendran

Expert Member