G. Ramesh vs District Collector And Ors

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 6. The 5th respondent Mr.V.K.Sathish Kumar, having received notice, has not chosen to appear. In fact, in our original order in the Application dated 17.10.2016 also it is the name of the 5th respondent Mr.V.K.Sathish Kumar which has been entered. It was on the basis that the present applicant was an encroacher like that of one, Mr.G.Venkatesan who was the applicant in Application No.121 of 2015, we have passed a common order on 17.10.2016 dismissing the application.

However, on a Review Application filed by the applicant in Application No.64 of 2015 (G.Ramesh) in Review Application No.6 of 2016 when it is informed that it is only G.Venkatesan who was an encroacher and not the present applicant, the matter is directed to be reopened.

The grievance of the applicant is that he is the owner of agricultural lands measuring an extent of 59 acres in Survey Nos.185/3, 187/2, 187/4, 206/1 and 207/3B of No.43, Magaral Village in Thiruvallur District. It is further stated that the adjoining lands to a large extent are irrigated by 'Periya Eri' which lies in Survey No.216 of Magaral Village and from Peria Eri a channel goes to Magaral Village, through Karanai Village and the said Agriculturists are depending upon the water from Peria Eri. A Meeting of the Village Committee was convened on 26.01.2015 and in the circumstances that the seasonal rain has failed for 3 years, a resolution was passed that there shall not be any quarrying of Savudu in the said area.

It is the case of the applicant that some strangers, headed by the 5th respondent, have started excavating savudu and when the villagers questioned, it was informed by the 5th respondent that he was having proper quarry license. It was in those circumstances the applicant and other villagers have given representations to the District Collector and Assistant Director of Mines and Minerals viz., 1st and 2nd respondents dated 07.03.2015 bringing to the notice of the said Authorities that the Government has already framed guidelines in G.O.Ms No.938 dated 07.06.1988 and prescribed various conditions for quarrying in Lake beds and other areas. The Peria Eri Lake/Tank and the Earth are in the same level with that of the sluice and therefore as per the above G.O. quarrying is not permissible. Since the representations were not considered and the 5th respondent has been continuously quarrying savudu, the present application is filed to forbear the official respondent Nos.1 to 4 from sanctioning/ granting savudu (sand) quarry license/ permit to the 5th respondent or anyone claiming that he is having a quarrying license over lake bed of Peria Eri in Survey No.216 of Makaral Village, Thiruvallur Taluk and District in contravention of G.O.Ms No.938 dated 07.06.1988.

It appears that SEIAA has granted EC in favour of Mr.V.K.Sathishkumar 5th respondent herein, who has not chosen to appear before this Tribunal having received notice. However, the local authorities based on provisions of G.O.No.938 dated 07.06.1988 have not granted any permission to quarry and admittedly as on date, the 5th respondent is not quarrying and he has not paid Seigniorage fee and consequently he is not entitled to quarry the same.

In G.O.Ms.No.938 dated 07.06.1988, direction has been given by the Government that the persons who are desirous of removing the soil from the irrigation tanks shall be permitted to do so subject to the following conditions:

The earth should not be removed below the sill level of the lowest level of sluice of the tank, since the capacity of the tank by removal of earth below the sill level will only be a dead storage of the tank.

The earth shall not be removed within the distance of 5 times the maximum height of the tank bund from the front toe of the bund.

The cart, lorry or any other vehicle used for removing and conveying the earth shall not cross the bund except in authorised cart track crossings or ramps. Such vehicle should not pass over the surplus weir or appurtenant works.

The vehicles should not cross the channel supplying water to the tank or the surplus courses except over culvert or bridges.

Seigniorage charges need not be recovered for earth removed and used for agricultural purposes; such levies are to be made for the earth used for the manufacture of bricks and other commercial purposes. Revenue Department will be the authority to collect seigniorage charges.

The earth from the tank shall be removed only during the period when there is no storage.

The public works department officials shall have the right to refuse permission to remove the earth without assigning any reason therefor in the interest of safeguarding the tank and its ayacut.

The authority by competent to sanction quarrying permit and the seigniorage fee shall be as prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.322 Industries Department dated 2.3.88 as amended.

Therefore, by virtue of such conditions prescribed, unless and until the conditions are complied with, the Collector himself has no authority to grant permission to any person to extract Savudu. Further, it is the policy of the Government that in so far as it relates to extraction of savudu, the permitted people are agriculturists living in the same area by way of right of pre-emption as the same is useful for their agricultural operations. In the circumstances, though it is the case of the applicant that the 5th respondent is not complying with the conditions of G.O. which has not been controverted on the other hand, it is the case of the 5th respondent as submitted by the learned counsel that the 5th respondent has not been given any permit and he has not paid any seigniorage fee, we are of the view that the applicant's case has to be accepted. In view of the same, the application stands allowed with the directions to official respondents not to permit the 5th respondent or any other person to quarry in the Peria Eri comprised in Survey No.216, Makaral Village unless and until such persons are granted permission based on compliance of the terms and conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms. No.938 dated 7.6.1988 and follow the policy of the Government in this regard. There shall be no order as to cost.