P.J.Markose vs State Of Kerala

N. Nagaresh, J

The petitioner, who is owner of 2.91 Acres of property in Alakode Village of Thodupuzha Taluk, seeks to quash Exts.P4 and P5 and to command the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on the application for issuance of NOC for quarrying in the property.

The petitioner states that he submitted application to the 4th respondent-Panchayat seeking permission to construct a goat farm in a portion of the property. The 4th respondent issued building and development permit after conducting inspection. As the construction required removal of granite by blasting, the petitioner submitted application to the 3rd respondent-RDO seeking issuance of NOC.

The 3rd respondent declined NOC holding that blasting of rock is not necessary and that construction can be carried out in other portions of the land. The 3rd respondent noted that a water supply line is passing along the side of the land. The petitioner would submit that such finding is incorrect. The impugned orders were passed without hearing the petitioner and without appreciating real facts.

The petitioner would argue that the area where development is to be done is rocky and hence removal of rocks is necessary, without which building construction is not possible. The application for NOC submitted by the petitioner was rejected as per Ext.P4 order. The petitioner requested the 3rd respondent to reconsider the decision. The said request also was rejected as per Ext.P5.

The petitioner would submit that the rejection is based on a wrong report submitted by the 6th respondent-Geologist. The High Tension power line passing above the property of the petitioner was not considered by the 6th respondent. There is no land available for effecting construction avoiding tower line and away from residential building. Exts.P4 and P5 are therefore liable to be quashed. The petitioner is entitled to get an NOC from the 3rd respondent-RDO, urged the petitioner.

The 3rd respondent resisted the writ petition filing counter affidavit. The 3rd respondent submitted that the petitioner has other suitable area for construction of goat farm, where construction activities can be carried out without removing the rocks. The law requires that extraction and removal of rock can only be allowed in inevitable cases. The writ petition is devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed, insisted the Government Pleader.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 4 and 6.

The petitioner wants to construct building for a goat farm in the property having an extent of 2.91 Acres. According to the petitioner, construction of building would require removal of rocky parts from the land by blasting. The petitioner therefore submitted an application for NOC to the RDO, which stands rejected as per Exts.P4 and P5. In Ext.P4, the RDO has found that only 169 M3 of rock is projecting in the land which is only a small part of the land. Construction can be resorted to leaving that area. Construction can be made avoiding the area where electric line passes. The RDO further noted that alongside the rocky portion, there is a water chal through which storm water passes during rainy season. Very close to the area proposed by the petitioner for blasting, there is a compound wall adjacent to which water supply line is passing. It is on those grounds that NOC was declined.

As pointed out by the respondents, extraction and removal of rock can be allowed only in inevitable cases. The petitioner can utilise other portions of the land for constructing building for goat farm. There is no unavoidable situation warranting extraction and removal of rock. When the petitioner has sufficient suitable land for construction of goat farm without removing rock, the petitioner cannot insist that he should be issued NOC.

I find no illegality in Exts.P4 and P5 orders of the RDO. The writ petition is therefore without any merits and it is dismissed.