Every building, whether it is a modest dwelling house or a
large commercial complex, begins with the excavation of earth. Before the first
brick is laid or the first concrete footing is cast, ordinary earth has to be
removed to prepare the site for the foundation. To most landowners, this
appears to be a routine part of construction. However, from a legal
perspective, the removal of ordinary earth is not merely a construction
activity—it is an activity regulated by mining law.
This often comes as a surprise to the public. Many building
owners are unaware that ordinary earth (soil), when used for specified
purposes, is classified as a minor mineral under the Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act). Consequently,
its excavation and removal are governed not only by building laws but also by
the mining laws and the rules framed thereunder.
In Kerala, the removal of ordinary earth required for the
construction of buildings is regulated primarily by Rule 14 of the Kerala
Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 (KMMC Rules). Unlike the ordinary
provisions relating to quarrying permits, Rule 14 creates a special legal
mechanism that enables eligible building owners to remove ordinary earth
required for construction, subject to specified safeguards and conditions.
The Rule, however, did not emerge in its present form
overnight.
Its evolution has been shaped over more than two decades
through a combination of legislative amendments, judicial pronouncements and
practical experience gained during its implementation. The original Rule was
framed with the objective of facilitating genuine building construction while
ensuring that ordinary earth, being a minor mineral, remained subject to
regulatory control. Over time, however, practical difficulties arose. The
concession was misused in certain cases for commercial extraction of ordinary
earth under the guise of building construction. This led to judicial
intervention, particularly by the Kerala High Court, followed by a series of
amendments strengthening the Rule and introducing additional safeguards.
The Rule has also evolved in response to developments in
environmental law. The relationship between the KMMC Rules and the
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification has significantly influenced
the manner in which Rule 14 has been drafted and subsequently amended. More
recent amendments have introduced concepts such as the Precise Area,
expanded the role of Local Self Government Institutions, provided mechanisms to
address unforeseen situations such as the accidental discovery of other minor
minerals, and refined the procedural safeguards applicable to applicants.
Consequently, the present Rule is the result of continuous
legislative refinement rather than a single legislative exercise.
Unfortunately, Rule 14 is also one of the most misunderstood
provisions of the KMMC Rules. It is often assumed that it grants a blanket
exemption from the mining laws for building construction. Others mistakenly
believe that any excavation undertaken in connection with a building
automatically qualifies under the Rule. Such assumptions are legally incorrect.
Rule 14 is not an exemption from mining law; it is a special regulatory
provision applicable only to the limited circumstances specified therein.
Commercial extraction of ordinary earth continues to be governed by the
ordinary provisions relating to quarrying permits under the KMMC Rules.
This article attempts to trace the complete legislative
history of Rule 14, explain the reasons behind each significant amendment,
examine the influence of judicial decisions on its evolution, and analyse the
present legal position in a practical and accessible manner. Wherever
necessary, reference is made to the relevant statutory provisions, Government
notifications and judicial pronouncements, not merely to explain what
the law provides, but also why it has developed in its present form.
A proper understanding of Rule 14 is important not only for
officers of the Department of Mining and Geology and Local Self Government
Institutions, but also for advocates, engineers, architects, contractors and,
above all, ordinary citizens proposing to construct buildings. An appreciation
of the historical evolution of the Rule helps explain the legislative intent
behind its various safeguards and dispels many of the misconceptions that
continue to surround its implementation.
2. Before Ordinary Earth Became a Minor Mineral
Until the turn of the century, the excavation of ordinary
earth for construction purposes was not specifically regulated as a mining
activity under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957
(MMDR Act).
Although the MMDR Act governed the extraction of minerals
such as building stone, laterite, granite and other notified minor minerals, ordinary
earth did not form part of that category. Consequently, the excavation of
ordinary earth for purposes such as building construction, land development or
filling was generally regarded as an incident of land ownership rather than as
an activity attracting the provisions of mining law.
A person constructing a house could ordinarily excavate the
required earth for laying the foundation without obtaining any permission under
the mining laws, provided no other statutory restrictions were attracted. The
regulation of construction activities was primarily governed by the applicable
building rules and the permissions issued by the Local Self Government
Institution.
This legal position, however, gradually gave rise to a
practical problem.
With rapid urbanisation and large-scale infrastructure
development, ordinary earth itself acquired significant commercial value. Vast
quantities of earth were required for filling low-lying areas, road
construction, industrial projects and various development activities. In many
places, excavation of ordinary earth was no longer undertaken merely as an
incidental part of construction. It had become an independent commercial
activity involving the large-scale extraction and transportation of earth from
one location to another.
Unlike building stone or laterite, however, the excavation
of ordinary earth remained largely outside the regulatory framework of the
mining laws. This created an imbalance. While other minor minerals could be
extracted only in accordance with statutory permissions, ordinary earth—despite
being extracted and traded in substantial quantities—was not subject to a
comparable regulatory mechanism.
The Central Government recognised that this situation
required legislative intervention. If ordinary earth was being extracted and
commercially utilised on a large scale, its removal could no longer remain
entirely outside the scope of mineral regulation.
This ultimately led to a significant policy decision that
fundamentally altered the legal position throughout the country.
That decision came in the form of a notification issued by
the Central Government on 3 February 2000, whereby ordinary earth used
for specified purposes was declared to be a minor mineral under the MMDR
Act.
This notification marked the beginning of an entirely new
legal regime governing the excavation and removal of ordinary earth.
3. G.S.R. 95(E) – The Turning Point
The legal landscape changed fundamentally on 3 February
2000, when the Central Government issued G.S.R. 95(E) in exercise of
the powers conferred by Section 3(e) of the Mines and Minerals (Development
and Regulation) Act, 1957.
By this notification, the Central Government declared ordinary
earth used for filling or levelling purposes in construction, laying of
embankments, roads, railways and buildings to be a minor mineral.
Although the notification was brief, its legal consequences
were far-reaching.
For the first time, ordinary earth, when used for the
purposes specified in the notification, became subject to the provisions of the
MMDR Act and the rules framed thereunder. What had previously been treated
largely as an ordinary incident of land development now acquired the legal
character of a mineral regulated by mining law.
It is important to appreciate the scope of this
notification.
The Central Government did not declare all ordinary
earth to be a minor mineral for every conceivable purpose. The notification was
confined to ordinary earth used for the specific purposes mentioned therein.
This distinction continues to be relevant while interpreting the notification
and the rules framed pursuant to it.
The notification also had an important constitutional
consequence.
Under the MMDR Act, while the Central Government determines
what constitutes a minor mineral, the regulation of quarrying, permits and
concessions in respect of minor minerals is primarily entrusted to the State
Governments. Consequently, once ordinary earth used for the notified purposes
became a minor mineral, it became necessary for the State Governments to evolve
an appropriate regulatory framework governing its extraction and removal.
In Kerala, this responsibility was discharged through the Kerala
Minor Mineral Concession Rules.
However, the declaration of ordinary earth as a minor
mineral immediately exposed a practical difficulty.
Every building necessarily requires excavation for its
foundation. If the ordinary provisions governing quarrying permits were applied
mechanically, every person proposing to construct even a small residential
house would have been required to obtain a quarrying permit merely because
ordinary earth had to be excavated from the site.
Such an approach would have imposed an unnecessary
regulatory burden on ordinary citizens and would have been inconsistent with
the practical realities of building construction.
The law therefore had to evolve a mechanism that
distinguished commercial mining of ordinary earth from excavation
that is merely incidental to the construction of a building.
That necessity ultimately gave birth to one of the most
significant provisions in the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules—Rule 14.
4. Delay in Operationalisation of G.S.R. 95(E) and Bridging of Regulatory Gap in Kerala (2000–2012)
Although the Central Government, by G.S.R. 95(E) dated 3 February 2000, declared ordinary earth used for specified construction-related purposes to be a minor mineral under Section 3(e) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, the said declaration remained without effective operational implementation in the State of Kerala for over a decade, as the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 were not contemporaneously amended to incorporate a regulatory framework governing its extraction and movement. This resulted in a prolonged regulatory vacuum from 2000 to 2012, during which the State lacked statutory provisions governing the grant of quarrying permits, identification of competent authorities, prescription of conditions for extraction, levy of royalty, and control of transportation of ordinary earth, thereby leading to inconsistent administrative practices across districts and uncertainty in enforcement.
The absence of a harmonised regulatory framework persisted until the issue was brought to the attention of the Kerala High Court, which underscored the necessity of aligning the State Rules with the Central notification and highlighted the inability of the existing legal framework to operationalise the declaration under G.S.R. 95(E). This judicial intervention acted as the catalyst for corrective executive action.
Pursuant to the observations of the Court, the Government of Kerala initiated a phased regulatory response beginning with G.O.(Ms.) No. 18/2012/ID dated 23 January 2012, acknowledging the necessity of regulating ordinary earth under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 and initiating steps for amendment of the Rules. This was followed by G.O.(Ms.) No. 140/2012/ID dated 12 April 2012, which provided interim procedural guidelines for processing applications relating to extraction of ordinary earth and ensured administrative uniformity across districts during the transitional phase.
The long-standing regulatory gap was ultimately bridged only in 2012, when the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 were amended through G.O.(P) No. 138/2012/ID dated 17 November 2012, published as S.R.O. No. 798/2012 dated 30 November 2012, thereby formally incorporating ordinary earth within the State regulatory framework. The amendment provided the statutory basis for the grant of quarrying permits, regulation of extraction, and control of transport of ordinary earth through the mineral transit pass system, thereby giving full effect at the State level to the Central Government’s notification issued in 2000.
Thus, although ordinary earth was declared a minor mineral in 2000, the regulatory regime in Kerala became operational only in 2012, marking the closure of a prolonged implementation gap through judicial prompting, executive intervention, and statutory amendment.
5. Environmental Law and the Genesis of Rule 14 of KMMCR 2015
The declaration of ordinary earth as a minor mineral created
an immediate practical question. If the excavation of ordinary earth was now
governed by the mining laws, should every person constructing a building be
required to obtain a quarrying permit merely because the foundation involved
excavation of ordinary earth?
The answer was not as straightforward as it appeared.
Even as mining law was being extended to ordinary earth,
environmental law had already recognised that excavation for building
foundations occupied a distinct legal position. Under the Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification issued under the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986, certain activities were specifically exempted from
the requirement of obtaining prior Environmental Clearance.
Among the exempted activities was:
"Digging of foundation for buildings, not requiring
prior Environmental Clearance, as the case may be." (Item 11 of the
list of exempted activities).
This exemption is of considerable legal significance.
It recognises that excavation undertaken solely for laying
the foundation of a building is not an independent mining activity. Rather, it
is an activity that is merely incidental to lawful building construction. The
primary object of the activity is the construction of the building itself. The
removal of ordinary earth is only a necessary consequence of that construction.
The Government considered it appropriate that the regulatory
framework under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules should also recognise
this distinction.
If every building owner were required to obtain a quarrying
permit under the ordinary provisions of the Rules, the procedure applicable to
commercial mining operations would become applicable even to ordinary
residential construction. Such an approach would have imposed unnecessary
hardship upon citizens and would have defeated the very purpose of the
exemption recognised under the environmental regulatory framework.
It was in this legal background that a special provision was
introduced under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules to regulate the
removal of ordinary earth required for building construction.
That provision was Rule 14.
Rule 14 did not exempt the removal of ordinary earth from
the operation of the mining law. Instead, it created a special regulatory
mechanism applicable only to the removal of ordinary earth required for the
construction of eligible buildings. The concession was granted because the
excavation was incidental to building construction and not because ordinary
earth ceased to be a minor mineral.
Thus, from its very inception, Rule 14 represented an
attempt to harmonise two distinct legal frameworks—the mining law governing
minor minerals and the environmental law recognising that excavation for
building foundations should not be treated in the same manner as commercial
mining.
6. The Original Rule 14 – A Carefully Balanced Concession
When Rule 14 was originally introduced, the Government
sought to strike a careful balance between two competing public interests.
On the one hand, a person constructing a genuine building
should not be required to undergo the elaborate regulatory procedure applicable
to commercial quarrying operations merely because excavation of ordinary earth
was necessary for laying the foundation of the building.
On the other hand, ordinary earth had considerable
commercial value. The Government recognised that, if unrestricted concessions
were granted in the name of building construction, the provision could easily
be misused as a means of extracting ordinary earth for commercial purposes.
Accordingly, the Government adopted a cautious legislative
approach.
The benefit of Rule 14 was initially confined to buildings
having a plinth area not exceeding 300 square metres. This threshold was a
legislative policy decision intended to limit the benefit of the simplified
procedure to comparatively smaller building projects. Larger projects were
required to follow the ordinary provisions of the Kerala Minor Mineral
Concession Rules governing quarrying permits, wherever applicable.
The 300 square metre limit was not based upon the quantity
of ordinary earth likely to be excavated, nor was it intended to determine
environmental impact. Rather, it served as a practical safeguard against misuse
while extending the concession to ordinary residential and similar buildings.
Thus, from its very inception, Rule 14 reflected a carefully
balanced legislative policy. It facilitated genuine building construction while
ensuring that the concession did not become an alternative route for commercial
extraction of ordinary earth.
7. When a Beneficial Provision Began to Be Misused
Every beneficial provision carries with it the possibility
of misuse.
Rule 14 was no exception.
During the years following its introduction, the Department
of Mining and Geology began noticing a recurring pattern in certain cases.
Applicants obtained building permits for comparatively small
buildings and thereafter sought permission under Rule 14 for the removal of
ordinary earth. After obtaining the required Mineral Transit Passes, large
quantities of ordinary earth were excavated and transported from the property.
However, once the excavation was completed, the proposed building was either
not constructed at all or its construction was indefinitely postponed.
In such cases, the building permit had effectively become a
means of securing permission to remove commercially valuable ordinary earth.
This was entirely contrary to the legislative purpose of
Rule 14.
The concession had been introduced solely because the
excavation of ordinary earth was incidental to the construction of a
building. Where the building itself was never constructed, the very basis
upon which the concession had been granted ceased to exist.
Field inspections conducted by the Department increasingly
revealed cases in which the entire quantity of ordinary earth permitted under
the Rule had already been removed, yet even the foundation of the proposed
building remained incomplete years after the excavation.
The existing Rule did not adequately address this situation.
Although permission could be granted for the removal of
ordinary earth, there was no effective mechanism to ensure that the excavation
was genuinely followed by construction of the approved building. Nor did the
Rule contain sufficient deterrents against those who obtained permission
primarily for commercial extraction.
As complaints regarding such misuse increased, the issue
eventually reached the Kerala High Court.
The litigation that followed would fundamentally influence
the future evolution of Rule 14.
8. Judicial Intervention – Hon’ble Justice K. Vinod
Chandran and the Evolution of Rule 14
A major turning point in the evolution of Rule 14 came
through a series of judgments delivered by Hon’ble Justice K. Vinod
Chandran of the Kerala High Court.
The Court was called upon to examine cases where permission
had been obtained under Rule 14 for the removal of ordinary earth in connection
with proposed building construction, but the subsequent conduct of the
applicants indicated that the concession was being misused.
The Court examined the object underlying Rule 14 and
identified an important legal principle.
The concession available under Rule 14 was not intended to
facilitate the commercial extraction of ordinary earth. It existed because the
excavation was merely incidental to the lawful construction of a
building. Consequently, if the building itself was never constructed, the very
foundation upon which the concession rested disappeared.
The Court also noticed an important deficiency in the Rule
as it then stood.
Although permission could be granted for the removal of
ordinary earth, there was no statutory obligation requiring the applicant to
proceed with the construction within any specified period. This created an
obvious opportunity for abuse. A person could remove substantial quantities of
ordinary earth under the cover of a building permit and thereafter abandon the
construction altogether.
Recognising this defect, the Court examined the validity of
the then existing provisions of Rule 14 and emphasised the need for adequate
safeguards to ensure that the concession remained confined to genuine building
construction.
The judgments served as an important catalyst for
legislative reform.
The Government accepted the necessity for strengthening Rule
14 and subsequently introduced a series of amendments designed to prevent
misuse while preserving the concession available to genuine building owners.
Many of the safeguards found in the present Rule—including
the requirement relating to completion of the foundation within the prescribed
period, the enhanced financial consequences for non-compliance and the
affidavit executed by the applicant—owe their origin to the practical concerns
highlighted during this phase of judicial scrutiny.
Thus, the evolution of Rule 14 was shaped not merely by
legislative policy but also by judicial intervention that exposed weaknesses in
the original regulatory framework and prompted the Government to address them
through appropriate amendments.
9. Government Response – Strengthening Rule 14
The judicial scrutiny of Rule 14 exposed an important
weakness in the original regulatory framework. Although the Rule enabled the
removal of ordinary earth for genuine building construction, it contained no
effective mechanism to ensure that the concession was used only for that
purpose.
The Government accepted that the concession itself did not
require reconsideration. The real need was to strengthen the safeguards against
misuse.
Accordingly, Rule 14 was amended to introduce a series of
conditions that fundamentally changed the character of the provision.
Earlier, Rule 14 primarily regulated the grant of
permission to remove ordinary earth.
Following these amendments, the Rule also began regulating what
happened after the excavation.
This marked an important shift in legislative policy. The
law no longer proceeded merely on the applicant's declaration that the
excavation was required for building construction. Instead, the applicant
became subject to continuing statutory obligations intended to ensure that the
excavation was genuinely connected with the approved building.
Three important safeguards emerged during this phase of
legislative development:
- the
requirement to complete the basement or foundation within the prescribed
period;
- the
introduction of enhanced financial liability for non-compliance; and
- the
applicant's formal undertaking to comply with the conditions of the
permission.
These safeguards transformed Rule 14 from a provision that
merely facilitated excavation into one that also ensured accountability.
10. The Foundation Requirement – Ensuring Genuine
Construction
Perhaps the most significant amendment introduced following
the judicial developments was the requirement that the applicant should
complete at least the basement or foundation of the approved building
within a prescribed period.
Initially, the Rule prescribed a period of one year
from the date of issuance of the Mineral Transit Pass.
The significance of this amendment lies not merely in the
time limit prescribed, but in the legislative principle that it introduced.
The Government did not insist that the entire
building should be completed within one year. Such a requirement would have
been unrealistic. Construction projects are often delayed due to financial
constraints, shortage of labour, adverse weather conditions, revisions to
building plans, delays in obtaining finance and numerous other practical
reasons beyond the control of the building owner.
Instead, the Rule adopted a more practical approach.
By requiring completion of at least the foundation or
basement, the Government ensured that there would be objective evidence that
the excavation had genuinely been undertaken for constructing the approved
building.
The requirement therefore served a dual purpose.
First, it protected genuine applicants, who ordinarily
proceed with construction after excavation.
Secondly, it discouraged those who intended only to obtain
permission for removal of ordinary earth without any real intention of
constructing the building.
The amendment thus reinforced the fundamental principle
underlying Rule 14.
The concession is available not because the applicant owns
the land or possesses a building permit, but because the removal of ordinary
earth is incidental to the actual construction of the approved building.
Completion of the foundation within the prescribed period
became the statutory means of demonstrating that the concession had been
utilised for its intended purpose.
11. Five Times the Royalty – Why Such a Stringent
Penalty?
The introduction of the foundation requirement alone was not
sufficient to prevent misuse.
The Rule also required an effective deterrent against
violations.
Accordingly, the Government introduced one of the most
significant enforcement provisions under Rule 14—the recovery of five times the
royalty in specified cases of non-compliance.
This provision is sometimes misunderstood as being intended
merely to increase Government revenue.
That is not its object.
The primary purpose of prescribing five times the royalty is
deterrence.
If the consequence of violating the conditions of Rule 14
were limited to payment of the ordinary royalty, the concession could still be
misused where the commercial value of the excavated ordinary earth exceeded the
financial consequences of the violation.
The enhanced liability ensures that misuse of the concession
becomes economically unattractive.
The provision therefore protects not only Government revenue
but also the integrity of the regulatory framework itself.
It reinforces the principle that Rule 14 is a beneficial
provision intended exclusively for genuine building construction and not for
commercial exploitation of ordinary earth.
The Penalty Applies Only to Specified Violations
It is equally important to understand that the recovery of
five times the royalty is not attracted by every breach of Rule 14. It applies
only to the specific violations prescribed under the Rules. As Rule 14 evolved,
the circumstances attracting the enhanced liability were also expanded.
Broadly stated, the important categories of violations are
the following.
(i) Failure to Complete the Foundation or Basement Within
the Prescribed Period
The earliest circumstance attracting the enhanced liability
arose from the amendment introduced following the judicial intervention
discussed in the previous chapter.
Where the applicant fails to complete at least the
foundation or basement of the approved building within the period prescribed
under Rule 14 (presently two years from the date of issuance of the Mineral
Transit Pass), the competent authority may initiate proceedings for recovery of
five times the royalty, in addition to such other action as may be permissible
under the Rules.
This provision ensures that the concession granted under
Rule 14 remains linked to genuine building construction and cannot be used
merely as a means of removing ordinary earth.
(ii) Removal of Ordinary Earth in Excess of the Approved
Quantity
The quantity of ordinary earth permitted for removal is not
determined arbitrarily.
It is assessed with reference to the approved building plan,
including the quantity of earth proposed to be excavated for construction and,
where applicable, the quantity proposed to be transported outside the property
after adjusting the quantity required for filling within the site.
If the applicant removes ordinary earth in excess of the
quantity approved under the Rule and for which royalty has been remitted, such
excess removal constitutes a violation attracting the enhanced liability
prescribed under Rule 14.
(iii) Excavation Outside the Approved Precise Area
Following the 2023 amendment, Rule 14 introduced another
important safeguard by restricting excavation to the approved Precise Area.
Accordingly, even where the quantity of ordinary earth
removed does not exceed the approved quantity, excavation extending beyond the
approved Precise Area constitutes a separate violation.
For example, permission may be granted for excavation
required for the approved building together with the permissible adjoining
area. If excavation is extended to another portion of the property unrelated to
the approved building merely for removing additional ordinary earth, such
excavation falls outside the concession granted under Rule 14.
The introduction of the Precise Area therefore added a
spatial safeguard to the existing quantitative restrictions.
Rule 14 now regulates both how much ordinary earth may be
removed and where that excavation may be undertaken.
The enhanced liability prescribed under the Rule reflects
the importance attached by the legislature to compliance with these safeguards.
12. Decentralisation – Bringing the Service Closer to the
Citizen
As Rule 14 came to be widely used, the number of
applications for permission to remove ordinary earth increased substantially.
This created practical difficulties in the administration of the Rule.
Initially, all applications under Rule 14 were processed by
the offices of the Department of Mining and Geology. Applicants were required
to approach the District Office for submitting applications, producing the
required documents, obtaining permission, collecting the Mineral Transit Passes
and completing other procedural formalities.
For persons constructing small residential or commercial
buildings, this often resulted in considerable hardship. In geographically
large districts, applicants had to travel long distances to the District
Office, sometimes on multiple occasions, merely to complete routine formalities
under Rule 14.
The increasing number of applications also placed a
significant administrative burden on the Department of Mining and Geology. With
limited staff strength, District Offices had to process a large volume of Rule
14 applications in addition to their regular statutory responsibilities
relating to quarrying permits, mining leases, inspections, enforcement and
regulation of mining activities throughout the district. Consequently,
applications under Rule 14 were often delayed, causing inconvenience to genuine
building owners.
The Government therefore considered that the administration
of Rule 14 should be decentralised.
Since the Secretaries of the Local Self Government
Institutions were already the statutory authorities responsible for issuing
building permits under the applicable Building Rules and were in possession of
the approved plans, site plans and other construction records, they were
considered the most appropriate authorities to administer Rule 14 in eligible
cases.
Accordingly, the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules were
amended to enable the delegation of specified powers under Rule 14 to the
Secretaries of Grama Panchayats, Municipalities and Municipal Corporations.
Thereafter, in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 113, the Government
issued G.O. (P) No. 56/2023/ID dated 11 September 2023, authorising the
Secretaries of Local Self Government Institutions to exercise the powers and
perform the functions under sub-rules (2), (3), (4), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10)
and (11) of Rule 14 within their respective areas of jurisdiction.
The amendment produced several practical benefits.
First, applicants could complete most of the formalities
relating to building construction and removal of ordinary earth before the same
local authority that had already processed their building permit. This
eliminated the need for repeated visits to the District Office.
Secondly, decentralisation brought the service much closer
to the citizen, making the procedure faster, simpler and more convenient.
Thirdly, by distributing Rule 14 applications among Local
Self Government Institutions across the State, the workload of the Department
of Mining and Geology was substantially reduced, enabling the Department to
devote greater attention to its core statutory functions, including regulation
of quarrying operations, inspection, enforcement and prevention of illegal
mining.
The delegation therefore benefited both the public and the
administration.
However, the scope of the delegation must be clearly
understood.
The amendment did not transfer or curtail the statutory
powers of the Department of Mining and Geology. The Department continues to be
the principal authority responsible for administering the Kerala Minor Mineral
Concession Rules throughout the State and retains all statutory powers relating
to inspection, supervision, enforcement and initiation of proceedings under the
Rules.
At the same time, the delegation made under Rule 113 is much
wider than merely authorising the Secretary to issue Mineral Transit Passes.
The Government Notification authorises the Secretary to exercise the powers and
perform the functions under the specified sub-rules of Rule 14. Consequently,
where an application is processed by a Local Self Government Institution and
the Mineral Transit Pass is issued by its Secretary, the Secretary is also
competent to exercise the consequential powers conferred under those sub-rules,
including initiating proceedings and recovering five times the royalty in cases
of violations falling under Rule 14, in accordance with the Rules and the
Government Notification.
The delegation therefore enables the Local Self Government
Institution to administer the entire process under Rule 14 within the limits of
the powers delegated by the Government, while the Department of Mining and
Geology continues to exercise its wider statutory jurisdiction throughout the
State.
The amendment thus represents administrative
decentralisation rather than decentralisation of statutory authority. Its
primary objective was to make the service more accessible to citizens, ensure
quicker disposal of applications and reduce the administrative burden on the
Department of Mining and Geology, while preserving the overall regulatory
framework established under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules.
13. Scientific Assessment for Buildings in Steeply
Sloping Terrain
As Rule 14 evolved, the Government also recognised another
important practical issue arising from Kerala's unique topography.
Many building sites in the State are situated on steeply
sloping terrain. Excavation of ordinary earth in such locations may destabilise
the slope and, if carried out without proper engineering assessment, may result
in slope failures, endangering life, property and the environment.
Recognising these concerns, the Government amended Rule 14
in 2023 to introduce an important safeguard.
The amendment provided that where the proposed building
site is located in a hilly terrain with steep slopes and the excavation of
ordinary earth is likely to result in slope failure, the applicant shall submit
a slope stability study report before permission is granted.
This represented a significant shift in the approach adopted
under Rule 14.
Until then, the focus of the Rule had largely been on
regulating the quantity of ordinary earth proposed to be removed and preventing
misuse of the concession. The 2023 amendment introduced an additional
consideration—geotechnical safety.
The object of the amendment was not merely to regulate
mining activity but also to ensure that excavation undertaken for building
construction does not create landslides or other geotechnical hazards.
Subsequently, the implementation of this provision also came
under judicial scrutiny.
In W.P.(C) No. 27562 of 2024, decided on 8 April
2025, the Hon'ble Kerala High Court observed that the Rules did not provide
a uniform criterion for determining which agencies could be regarded as
"reputable agencies" for preparing slope stability study reports.
Accepting this concern, the Government amended Rule 14 once
again.
The amended proviso now requires that the slope stability
study shall be prepared by a reputable agency notified by the Government
and capable of providing geotechnical investigation services. The Rule further
enables the Government to grade such agencies according to their
expertise and the nature or gravity of the projects they are competent to
undertake.
These amendments considerably strengthened Rule 14.
They ensure that technical decisions relating to excavation
in environmentally sensitive and geologically vulnerable areas are based upon
scientific evaluation by competent agencies rather than subjective assessments.
The evolution of this provision illustrates another
important feature of Rule 14. While the earlier amendments were primarily
directed towards preventing misuse of the concession for commercial extraction
of ordinary earth, the later amendments increasingly emphasise public
safety, geotechnical stability and scientific decision-making.
14. Accidental Discovery of Another Minor Mineral – A
Practical Solution
Rule 14 is a special provision enacted exclusively for the
removal of ordinary earth required for the construction of an eligible
building.
It is not a substitute for the provisions governing
quarrying permits for laterite, building stone or any other minor mineral.
Accordingly, where it is already evident from the nature of
the land, previous excavations or other available information that the proposed
work will involve the extraction of another minor mineral, an application under
Rule 14 should not be submitted merely because a building is proposed.
In such cases, the applicant must follow the provisions of
the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules applicable to the particular mineral
proposed to be extracted, including the requirement of obtaining the
appropriate quarrying permit and complying with all other statutory
requirements.
However, practical experience revealed a different type of
situation.
In many parts of Kerala, particularly in mindland regions, a
layer of ordinary earth may overlie laterite or granite building stone. During a
genuine excavation undertaken under Rule 14, another minor mineral may
therefore be encountered unexpectedly after the excavation has lawfully
commenced.
This is an accidental discovery.
It is fundamentally different from a situation in which the
applicant was aware from the outset that the land contained laterite or granite
building stone.
Earlier, the Rules did not contain an adequate mechanism to
deal with such situations. Even where the discovery of another mineral was
entirely unforeseen, the applicant was required to undergo a separate
regulatory process before the newly encountered mineral could be removed. This
often resulted in delay, interruption of construction and practical
difficulties.
Recognising this problem, the Government amended Rule 14 to
provide a mechanism for dealing with other minor minerals accidentally
encountered during authorised excavation.
The amendment, however, has a limited scope.
It does not authorise an applicant to use Rule 14 as
an alternative route for extracting laterite, building stone or any other minor
mineral.
Nor does it dispense with the requirements of the Kerala
Minor Mineral Concession Rules applicable to those minerals.
Its purpose is confined to situations where another minor
mineral is unexpectedly discovered during the course of a lawful
excavation already commenced under Rule 14.
The amendment therefore reflects another stage in the
evolution of the Rule.
Rather than creating a new concession, it addresses an
unforeseen practical difficulty encountered during the implementation of Rule
14 while preserving the fundamental principle that the Rule remains a special
provision applicable only to ordinary earth.
15. The Notarised Affidavit – More Than a Procedural
Requirement
Among the safeguards incorporated into the present Rule, one
of the most significant is the requirement that the applicant shall execute a notarised
affidavit before the Mineral Transit Pass is issued.
At first sight, this may appear to be another procedural
formality.
In reality, it serves a much more important legal purpose.
Through the affidavit, the applicant formally declares,
among other things, that the removal of ordinary earth is required exclusively
for the construction of the approved building, that excavation will be confined
to the quantity permitted under the Rule, that the conditions attached to the
permission will be complied with, and that the basement or foundation of the
building will be completed within the period prescribed by the Rules. The
applicant also acknowledges the legal consequences that may follow in the event
of any violation.
The affidavit therefore serves as a formal undertaking given
by the applicant to the Government.
Its importance, however, extends beyond this legal function.
Practical experience has shown that many landowners do not
personally handle the procedural formalities relating to Rule 14. Applications
are often prepared by agents, contractors or other intermediaries, who also
arrange for the excavation and transportation of ordinary earth. In many cases,
the landowner merely signs the documents placed before him without fully
understanding the conditions governing the permission.
This practice has resulted in serious difficulties.
Where excavation exceeds the permitted quantity, extends
beyond the approved area, or the conditions of the Rule are otherwise violated,
the legal responsibility rests not upon the agent or contractor but upon the
applicant in whose name the permission and the Mineral Transit Pass have been
issued.
Similarly, if the basement or foundation is not completed
within the prescribed period or other statutory conditions are not complied
with, the proceedings under Rule 14 are initiated against the applicant.
The requirement of a notarised affidavit seeks to minimise
such situations.
By insisting that the applicant personally execute an
affidavit before a Notary Public, the Rule expects the applicant to read,
understand and consciously accept the obligations undertaken before the
permission is granted.
Applicants should therefore never treat the affidavit as a
routine document prepared by an intermediary.
Before signing it, they should carefully verify:
- the
quantity of ordinary earth proposed to be excavated;
- the
approved Precise Area from which excavation is permitted;
- the
conditions attached to the Mineral Transit Pass;
- the
period prescribed for completion of the basement or foundation; and
- the
legal consequences of violating the Rule.
Ultimately, it is the applicant—not the agent, contractor
or intermediary—who remains legally accountable for compliance with Rule
14.
The notarised affidavit is intended to ensure that this
responsibility is clearly understood before excavation commences.
16. Internal Levelling of Land – When Permission Is Not
Required
One of the most common misconceptions regarding the Kerala
Minor Mineral Concession Rules is that every excavation of ordinary earth
requires permission under Rule 14.
This is not correct.
The primary object of Rule 14 is to regulate the removal
and transportation of ordinary earth from a property for the purpose of
building construction. It does not apply to every instance where earth is
excavated within a property.
A common example is the internal levelling of land.
Suppose a landowner proposes to develop his property by
cutting a higher portion of the land and using the excavated earth to fill a
lower portion of the same survey holding. The entire quantity of
ordinary earth remains within the same property. No portion of the excavated
earth is transported outside the property, no Mineral Transit Pass is required
and the material is not used elsewhere.
In such circumstances, the activity is fundamentally
different from the removal of ordinary earth from the property.
The ordinary earth continues to remain within the same
landholding. There is no commercial extraction, no transportation of a mineral
outside the property and no movement of ordinary earth for use elsewhere.
Recognising this distinction, the Kerala Minor Mineral
Concession Rules provide that only a prior intimation to the Department
of Mining and Geology is required in such cases, subject to the conditions
prescribed under Rule 104 (Note 1).
This provision reflects a practical and common-sense
approach.
The purpose of the mining law is to regulate the extraction
and movement of minerals. Where ordinary earth is merely redistributed within
the same property without leaving the site, the regulatory concerns are
substantially different from those arising when ordinary earth is transported
outside the property.
However, landowners should not misunderstand this provision.
The exemption is available only where the excavated
ordinary earth remains entirely within the same survey holding.
If any quantity of ordinary earth is proposed to be
transported outside the property, or if the activity otherwise falls within the
scope of Rule 14 or the other provisions of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession
Rules, the applicable statutory procedure must be followed.
Similarly, the requirement of prior intimation should not be
overlooked.
It enables the Department to verify that the proposed
activity is genuinely confined to internal land development and is not a
disguised attempt to remove ordinary earth from the property without complying
with the law.
A proper understanding of this distinction can prevent
unnecessary applications under Rule 14 on the one hand and inadvertent
violations of the Rules on the other.
17. Enforcement – A Shared Responsibility
The effective implementation of Rule 14 depends upon
coordinated action by several Government authorities exercising powers under
different statutory provisions.
The Department of Mining and Geology is the principal
authority responsible for administering the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession
Rules. It exercises the statutory powers relating to the grant of permissions,
issuance of Mineral Transit Passes, inspection of sites, detection of
violations and initiation of proceedings under the Rules.
Although certain powers under Rule 14 have been delegated to
the Secretaries of Local Self Government Institutions, the Department of Mining
and Geology continues to exercise its statutory jurisdiction throughout the
State.
The delegation of powers does not diminish or curtail the
authority of the Department under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules.
In eligible cases, the Secretaries of Grama Panchayats,
Municipalities and Municipal Corporations are authorised to administer Rule
14 and issue Mineral Transit Passes under the delegated powers conferred upon
them.
Where a Mineral Transit Pass has been issued by a Local Self
Government Institution, the Secretary is also competent to exercise the powers
specifically entrusted under the Rules in relation to that permission.
However, this jurisdiction is confined to the powers
delegated under Rule 14.
Apart from these authorities, the Revenue Department
and the Police Department also perform an important enforcement role.
Under notifications issued by the Government in exercise of
the powers conferred by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)
Act, 1957, officers of the Revenue Department and the Police Department
have been authorised to detect and prevent illegal mining, illegal
transportation and unauthorised stocking of minerals, and to initiate action in
accordance with the powers conferred upon them.
Accordingly, the enforcement of the mining laws is not the
exclusive responsibility of any one department.
While the administration of Rule 14 is entrusted primarily
to the Department of Mining and Geology and, in delegated cases, to the
Secretaries of Local Self Government Institutions, the prevention of illegal
mining, unauthorised transportation and unlawful stocking of minerals is a
coordinated responsibility shared by the Department of Mining and Geology, the
Revenue Department and the Police Department.
This coordinated enforcement mechanism helps ensure that the
concession granted under Rule 14 for genuine building construction is not
misused for unauthorised extraction or commercial exploitation of ordinary
earth.
Download notification on delegating powers to Secretaries of LSGI
18. Rule 14 Is Not the Only Method for Removing Ordinary
Earth
The discussion in this article has been confined exclusively
to the removal of ordinary earth required for building construction
under Rule 14 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules.
This should not be understood to mean that Rule 14 is the
only legal mechanism available for the excavation or removal of ordinary earth.
Where the proposed excavation is not connected with the
construction of an eligible building, or where the conditions prescribed
under Rule 14 cannot be satisfied, the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules
provide an entirely different legal framework.
A person proposing to extract ordinary earth as a mining
activity may apply for a quarrying permit under the applicable
provisions of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules.
Such applications are governed by a different statutory
procedure and are subject to the requirements applicable to quarrying
operations, including compliance with the prescribed distance criteria,
environmental requirements and other statutory conditions.
Unlike Rule 14, which is a special concession available
only because the excavation is incidental to building construction, a quarrying
permit authorises the extraction of ordinary earth as a mining activity in
accordance with the provisions of the Rules.
The procedure is naturally more elaborate because it is
intended to regulate commercial extraction of a minor mineral rather than
excavation incidental to construction.
Accordingly, persons should carefully identify the nature of
the activity proposed before submitting an application.
Where excavation is genuinely required for the construction
of an eligible building, Rule 14 provides the appropriate mechanism.
Where the activity amounts to mining of ordinary earth for
any other purpose, the provisions relating to quarrying permits must be
followed.
Understanding this distinction is essential because the two
legal regimes are intended to regulate fundamentally different activities.
19. A Similar Concession for Appurtenant Structures
Rule 14 is not the only beneficial provision under the
Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules intended to facilitate genuine
construction activities. The Rules also provide a simplified mechanism for the
removal and transportation of minor minerals excavated for the construction of appurtenant
structures of a building, such as compound walls, wells, septic tanks,
recharge pits, drainage systems and other similar ancillary structures.
Under Note 2 to Rule 104, where the quantity of minor
mineral proposed to be removed does not exceed 150 metric tonnes, the
land owner may approach the jurisdictional Geologist for assessment of
royalty and issue of Mineral Transit Passes, subject to compliance with the
conditions prescribed under the Rules. This provision enables genuine
construction activities to be carried out without undergoing the more elaborate
procedure applicable to quarrying operations.
20. Development Permits under the Building Rules Do Not
Authorise Removal of Ordinary Earth under Rule 14
Another issue that has arisen in practice concerns the grant
of Mineral Transit Passes on the basis of a Development Permit issued under the
Building Rules.
The Kerala Panchayat Building Rules and the Kerala
Municipality Building Rules provide for the grant of Development Permits to
regulate the development of land. Such permits may be required for activities
such as levelling of land, formation of roads, cutting and filling,
construction of retaining walls and other site development works. The Building
Rules also prescribe safeguards where such development involves deep excavation
or sloping terrain.
However, the Building Rules and the Kerala Minor Mineral
Concession Rules operate in entirely different fields.
A Development Permit regulates land development from the
perspective of planning, safety and building regulation. It does not authorise
the extraction, removal or transportation of a minor mineral.
The authority to remove and transport ordinary earth can
arise only under the provisions of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules.
Rule 14 is a special provision enacted exclusively for the
removal of ordinary earth required for the construction of an approved building.
The concession exists only because the excavation is incidental to building
construction. A Development Permit is not a Building Permit, and Rule 14
contains no provision extending its benefit to excavation undertaken merely for
land development.
Accordingly, a Mineral Transit Pass under Rule 14 cannot
legally be issued solely on the basis of a Development Permit.
Where ordinary earth excavated during land development is
utilised entirely within the same property for levelling or filling and is not
transported outside the property, the activity is governed by Rule 104 (Note 1)
of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, subject to compliance with the
conditions prescribed therein.
If, on the other hand, ordinary earth is proposed to be
transported outside the property as part of a land development project, the
concession available under Rule 14 is not attracted. The applicant must obtain
permission under the appropriate provisions of the Kerala Minor Mineral
Concession Rules applicable to such removal, including the provisions relating
to quarrying permits or other applicable permissions, as the case may be.
The legal position is therefore clear. A Development Permit
under the Building Rules cannot be used as a substitute for a Building Permit
for the purpose of invoking Rule 14. The Building Rules regulate development of
land; the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules regulate the extraction and
transportation of minor minerals. Each statutory scheme operates within its own
field, and one cannot be used to bypass the requirements of the other.
This article deals only with the removal of ordinary
earth required for building construction under Rule 14 of the Kerala Minor
Mineral Concession Rules.
It does not discuss the legal provisions applicable
to the commercial extraction of ordinary earth under a quarrying permit.
Readers proposing to mine ordinary earth for purposes
unconnected with building construction should refer to the provisions of the
Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules governing quarrying permits, together
with the applicable environmental and other statutory requirements.
The existence of Rule 14 should not be understood as
restricting the grant of quarrying permits for ordinary earth in appropriate
cases. Rather, the Rules provide two distinct legal mechanisms—one for
excavation incidental to genuine building construction and the other for the
commercial extraction of ordinary earth as a mining activity.
About the Author
Biju Sebastian is a retired Deputy Director of the Department of Mining and Geology, Government of Kerala. With over three decades of experience in mineral administration, mining laws, geology, GIS, and e-governance, he founded Mine Mapper, an independent platform dedicated to mining, geology, geospatial technologies, and digital solutions for the mining sector. Through Mine Mapper, he publishes the MiningWatch Kerala series featuring research-based articles, legal analyses, and technical insights on mining legislation, judicial decisions, environmental regulation, and mineral administration. The platform also provides practical digital tools and resources, including mine mapping applications, mining plan preparation tools, and other GIS-based utilities for professionals, industry, and the public.
Disclaimer
The views expressed in this article are those of the author
in his personal capacity and are intended solely for educational and
informational purposes. They do not represent the official views or policies of
the Government of Kerala, the Department of Mining and Geology, or any other
government authority.
This article does not constitute legal advice or an official
interpretation of any law. Readers are advised to refer to the original Acts,
Rules, Notifications, Government Orders, Circulars, and judicial decisions, or
seek appropriate professional advice where necessary.
For the complete Disclaimer, please refer to the Disclaimer page.
.png)
0 Comments