M/S.Kinallur Rock Sand vs State Of Kerala Represented By
2021 Latest Caselaw 7772 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

 FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF MARCH 2021/14TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                  WP(C).No.16760 OF 2020(T)


PETITIONER:

              M/S.KINALLUR ROCK SAND,
              MANKAYAM, M.M.PARAMBA P.O.,
              KINALUR, KOZHIKODE-673 574,
              REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
              SRI.VISHNU SUKUMARAN.

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL
              SRI.RONY JOSE
              SRI.GEORGE A.CHERIAN
              SRI.LEO LUKOSE

RESPONDENTS:

     1        STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
              THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES,
              GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

     2        DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
              CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE-673 020.

     3        ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
              CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE-673 020.

     4        TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE,
              THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE-673 573.

              BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. DEEPA NARAYANAN

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 05-03-2021 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.16760/2020
                                       :2:




                           N. NAGARESH, J.

          `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
                      W.P.(C) No.16760 of 2020

          `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
                Dated this the 5th day of March, 2021

                            JUDGMENT

~~~~~~~~~

The petitioner seeks to quash Ext.P2 order of the

3rd respondent -Additional District Magistrate and to direct the

District Collector and the Additional District Magistrate to

issue NOC as applied for by the petitioner as per Ext.P1.

2. The petitioner submitted an application for grant of

NOC for setting up an explosive magazine. The application

submitted under the Explosives Rules, 2008 has been

rejected on the sole ground that the property wherein the

magazine is to be established, is a plantation which was

exempted from cealing proceedings under the Kerala Land

Reforms Act, 1963.

W.P.(C) No.16760/2020

3. The petitioner would submit that with an intention

to establish a quarrying unit in 4.0558 Hectares of property in

Re-Survey No.109 of Kinallur Village, Kozhikode, the

petitioner applied for and was granted a Letter of Intent on

09.05.2018 by the Director of Mining and Geology under the

Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015. Thereafter,

the petitioner applied for NOC of the 3 rd respondent under

the Explosives Rules, 2008.

4. The 2nd respondent-District Collector called for

reports from various authorities including the 4 th respondent-

Tahsildar. After a period of two years, the 3 rd respondent, as

per Ext.P2, informed the petitioner that NOC cannot be

granted since the land in which the magazine is proposed to

be established was a plantation land, exempted under the

Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963.

5. The petitioner would contend that there is no

restriction under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 on using

a property exempted under the Kerala Land Reforms Act for

another purpose. The property, where the magazine is W.P.(C) No.16760/2020

sought to be started, was exempted for plantation purpose.

There is no prohibition in starting an explosive magazine in

the area.

6. The 3rd respondent opposed the writ petition and

filed a statement. The 3rd respondent stated that when the

application for NOC was received from the petitioner, it was

sent for enquiry and report to the District Police Chief

(Kozhikode Rural), Divisional Fire Officer (Fire and Rescue

Services) and Tahsildar. The Regional Fire Officer reported

that permission can be granted subject to terms and

conditions of the explosive magazine licence NOC. The

District Police Chief initially did not recommend issuance of

NOC. However, subsequently, the District Police Chief

reported that there is no objection in issuing NOC for

explosive magazine, in security point of view.

7. The Tahsildar pointed out that the land was

exempted from the ceiling area under the Kerala Land

Reforms Act, 1963 for plantation purpose. The extended

property will have to be maintained for the exempted purpose W.P.(C) No.16760/2020

alone. Therefore, NOC cannot be granted. Therefore, the

application submitted by the petitioner for grant of NOC was

rejected as per Ext.P2.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for

the respondents.

9. On the basis of enquiries made by the 2 nd

respondent-District Collector, the Fire and Rescue Officer

has reported that there is no objection in granting NOC to the

petitioner to start an explosive magazine in the land in

question. The District Police Chief has also reported that

there is no threat in the security point of view in permitting

the petitioner to establish explosive magazine in the land in

question. However, as per the report of the Tahsildar, the

land where explosive magazine is sought to be established,

is exempted land under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The

exemption was granted as the land was a plantation. No

permission can be granted to utilise the land for any other

purpose than the plantation.

W.P.(C) No.16760/2020

10. It was on that ground alone that NOC has been

declined to the petitioner. It may be noted that there is no

prohibition in using an exempted land under the Kerala Land

Reforms Act for a different purpose. And if the exempted

land is utilised for any other purpose, it may fall within one's

ceiling area and the authorities may be able to initiate cealing

proceedings. But, that cannot be a reason to decline

permission for using the land for another purpose. This view

is supported by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in

Mathew K. Jacob and another v. District Environmental

Impact Assessment Authority, Kottayam [2018 (5) KHC

487].

The writ petition is therefore allowed. Ext.P2 is set

aside. The 3rd respondent is directed to reconsider the

application of the petitioner for NOC and pass appropriate

orders thereon, in accordance with law, within a period of two

months.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE aks/04.03.2021 W.P.(C) No.16760/2020

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2.7.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

ncd