Srinagar: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a plea by the residents of village Pariswani in Baramulla, claiming that they were being pushed to starvation after being stopped from mining sand and stones from a local stream —their primary source of livelihood for generations.
The villagers had approached the court claiming that hundreds of families depended entirely on extracting sand, ‘bajri’ (gravel) and stones from a local ‘Nallah’ (stream) and adjoining land. They argued that this was not a commercial venture but a matter of survival, with no alternative employment in the area.
According to the petition, the sudden halt in extraction, coupled with refusal by authorities to accept royalty payments, had left families without income. Their vehicles have been seized and daily earners are struggling to feed their children.
Many petitioners described the situation as one of “economic suffocation”, alleging harassment, repeated fines, and loss of their only means of sustenance.
Their petition read that said the stream had even eaten away their lands due to floods, and for decades, they had been allowed to extract material on payment of royalty.
The change in government policy, they argued, had come without adequate rehabilitation or alternative jobs for them, effectively cutting off their lifeline.
Justice W S Nargal while disposing of their petition ruled that such hardship, though genuine, cannot override the law.
It held that no person has a legal right to extract minerals without a valid licence or concession under the statutory framework governing mining activities.
Ownership of land, the court said, does not extend to ownership or exploitation of minerals beneath it.
Rejecting the argument based on long-standing practice, the court observed that even if extraction had been tolerated in the past, it does not create a permanent or enforceable right.
The law, it said, now requires strict compliance with procedures including environmental safeguards and formal permissions, and these cannot be bypassed on grounds of livelihood alone.
The court also addressed the villagers’ plea under the constitutional right to livelihood, acknowledging their dependence on the activity but emphasizing that such rights are subject to what it termed as reasonable restrictions in public interest.
Mining, it held, has serious environmental consequences, especially in fragile ecosystems like riverbeds and streams, and must be regulated to prevent long-term damage.
It recorded the villagers’ economic distress and lack of alternative income, but ultimately concluded that relief cannot be granted in violation of statutory provisions.
The court maintained that allowing unregulated mining would set a dangerous precedent and undermine environmental protections.
Authorities’ actions, including seizure of vehicles and imposition of penalties, were upheld as lawful measures to curb illegal mining. The court declined to direct the government to accept royalty or permit extraction outside the legal framework.
In a limited relief, the court allowed the villagers the liberty to apply for proper mining permissions under the existing rules, stating that any such application should be considered fairly and in accordance with law.
While the judgment reinforces the rule of law and environmental safeguards, it leaves unanswered a pressing question on the ground: what happens to communities whose survival has long depended on now-restricted natural resources?
