Ancy Alexander vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 6563 Ker

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 6563 Ker
Judgement Date : 9 June, 2022

Kerala High Court

Ancy Alexander vs State Of Kerala on 9 June, 2022

WP(C) NO. 15949 OF 2017                1



                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                     PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
          THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 19TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                           WP(C) NO. 15949 OF 2017
PETITIONER/S:
           ANCY ALEXANDER
           AGED 56 YEARS
           W/O.C.C.ALEXANDER, PALAKKATHADATHIL HOUSE,
           ARUNOOTTIMANGALAM P.O., KADUTHURUTHY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
           THROUGH P.A. HOLDER & HUSBAND C.C.ALEXANDER.

               BY ADV SRI.A.KRISHNAN


RESPONDENT/S:
     1     STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY REVENUE SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
           698001.

      2        THE GEOLOGIST
               MINING & GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOTTAYAM-
               686002.

      3        DEPUTY THASILDAR RR
               VAIKOM.

      4        THE THASILDAR
               TALUK OFFICE, VAIKOM.

      5        THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
               CIVIL STATION, PALAI.

               BY ADVS
               ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA


OTHER PRESENT:
           SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP

      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 15949 OF 2017                      2


                          P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                    --------------------------------------------
                        W.P.(C.) No. 15949 of 2017
                       --------------------------------------
                   Dated this the 9th day of June, 2022


                                       JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :

1. "Through issuing a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction call for the records pertaining to Ext P7 and Ext P7(a) R/R proceedings and quash Ext P7 and Ext P7(a)R/R proceedings.

2. Through issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction command the 2nd respondent to dispose Ext P6(a) reply filed by the petitioner after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

3. Such other appropriate relief as may be deemed fit and necessary as to the nature of the case." [SIC]

2. The petitioner was the owner in possession and

enjoyment of 80.94 ares of property comprised in Survey No.

182/3-1 of Kaduthuruthy Village, Vaikom Taluk as per

registered sale deed No. 910/2005 of SRO, Kaduthuruthy. In

2014, the petitioner made an application to the 2 nd respondent,

the competent authority for excavation of sand from 30.27 ares

being the rest of the property. The 2 nd respondent called for a

report through the Village Officer, Kaduthuruthy as regards

the details of the property from which the excavation is sought

for. The Village Officer visited the property and filed report

along with the sketch and subsequently, 2 nd respondent as per

Ext.P2 order granted sanction to excavate 840 MT of sand

from the property. The petitioner relies Ext.P2 (a) to show that

only 840 MT quantity of sand was removed. Thereafter, the

petitioner made an application for excavation of 1400 MT of

sand from the property. That was also allowed. Exts.P4 and P5

are the orders. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with

Ext.P6 notice by the 2nd respondent, which was served on the

petitioner on 28.4.2016, even though it was dated 5.4.2016,

alleging that the petitioner excavated and removed 18210 MT

of land. The petitioner submitted a reply to Ext.P6 as evident

by Ext.P6(a). It is the definite case of the petitioner that

without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, the

respondents unilaterally decided to impose royalty and the

amount is fixed as Rs.7,33,400/-. Thereafter, revenue

recovery proceedings was initiated as evident by Exts.P7

and P7(a). It is the definite case of the petitioner that

no orders are passed in Ext.P6(a) explanation submitted by the

petitioner. Hence, this writ petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Government Pleader.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated his

contentions in the writ petition. The Government Pleader, on

the other hand, submitted that a statement is filed by the 2 nd

respondent in which the facts are disputed. A counter affidavit

is filed by the 4th respondent also. The Government Pleader

also submitted that the 2nd respondent inspected the property

and reported that huge quantity is excavated in addition to the

permission granted for removing ordinary earth.

5. After going through the pleadings including the

statement and counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is

clear that before proceeding with the revenue recovery, Ext.P6

(a) is not considered. It is also clear that it is a unilateral

decision by the respondents fixing the royalty amount. In such

circumstances, according to me, the respondents are bound to

hear the petitioner and pass appropriate orders and thereafter,

to proceed with the revenue recovery,if there is any liability from

the petitioner. For facilitating the respondents to in itiate fresh

proceedings, Exts.P7 and P7(a) can be quashed.

Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following

manner :

1) Exts.P7 and P7(a) are quashed.

2) The 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the matter

after giving an opportunity of hearing and also after

adverting the contentions raised by the petitioner in

Ext.P6(a) as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within

two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

3) The petitioner is free to file additional

statement/additional documents, if necessary before the

2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent will consider the

same also while passing final orders.