M/S Chelakkara Granites vs The Villageofficer
2023 Latest Caselaw 11164 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
         FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 5TH KARTHIKA, 1945
                          WP(C) NO. 886 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

              M/S CHELAKKARA GRANITES
              OORAMANA P.O, RAMAMANGALAM,MUVATTUPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY
              ITS MANAGING PARTNER VISWANATHAN K.R
              BY ADVS.
              PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU
              SAJITHA GEORGE
              NEENU BERNATH


RESPONDENTS:

     1        THE VILLAGEOFFICER
              VANIYAMKULAM VILLAGE, PALAKKAD., PIN - 679104
     2        THE TAHSILDAR
              TALUK OFFICE, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD., PIN - 679101



OTHER PRESENT

                 SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI BIMAL K NATH



     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.10.2023, THE COURT ON 27.10.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.886 of 2023              :2:




                                JUDGMENT

The petitioner states that, by Ext. P1 composite consent

deed, the owners of properties referred to therein have

permitted the petitioner to extract granite stones from their

properties and accordingly the petitioner applied for revenue

certificates including attested sketch, possession certificate,

demarcation certificate and non assignment certificate for the

purpose of applying for mineral concession. The application for

attested sketch was rejected by the Tahsildar, the 2 nd

respondent by Ext. P7 communication stating that the land in

respect of which the application has been submitted forms part

of a land once exempted under the provisions of Section 81 of

the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as

the 'Act') and therefore in view of the circular issued by the

Land Board Secretary based on the Judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in C.A. No. 7699-7700/2019 dated 30.09.2019

[Nazar K.H. v. Mathew K.Jacob (2019 (4) KHC 919)],

quarrying operations are not permitted in plantations exempted

under the provision of Section 81 of the Act. The petitioner

submits that non-issuance of possession certificate,

demarcation certificate, attested sketch, etc; on a premise that

the applied land forms part of a land once exempted under the

provisions of Section 81 of the Act is illegal and arbitrary. The

petitioner relies on Exts. P8 to P11 unreported judgments of

this Court which according to the petitioner are passed under

similar circumstances wherein this Court directed the revenue

authorities to issue revenue certificates.

2. Heard Sri. Philip J. Vettikattu the learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri. Jaffer Khan, learnd senior Government

pleader for the respondents.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that

there is no prohibition in using an exempted land for a different

purpose under the KLR Act. The learned senior Government

pleader argued in support of the impugned order.

4. The Full Bench of this Court in Mathew K. Jacob and

Another v. District Environmental Impact Assessment

Authority [2018 (5) KHC 487: 2018 (4) KLT 913: ILR

2018 (4) Ker. 868: 2019 (1) KLJ 49: AIR 2019 Ker. 67]

held that there is no prohibition in using an exempted land for a

different purpose under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The said

judgment has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

(K.H. Nazar v. Mathew K. Jacob; [(2020) 14 SCC

126;2019 (4) KHC 919]. In Kinallur Rock Sand v. State of

Kerala and others (2021(2) KLT 351) a single Bench of this

Court after following the decision of the Full Bench in Mathew

K. Jacob (supra) held 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 ceiling proceedings. However,

that cannot be a reason to decline permission for using the land

for another purpose. In District Collector v. Sajith Lal (2023

KLT OnLine 1225) the Division Bench of this Court in

paragraph '5' held as follows;

"5. There is no embargo under law in using any exempted

land for non- exempted purposes as well. If the land is

used for non-exempted purposes, the holder of the land

will lose the qualification for exemption, thus giving

authority to the Land Board to initiate ceiling proceedings.

The judgments cited at the Bar fortify the above legal

proposition. The KLR Act provides no answer against

conversion of the exempted land. Had it not been for the

exemption, the land would have been included in the

ceiling proceedings of the declarant for surrender. The only

plausible conclusion in this situation is that the Land Board

will be in a position to initiate ceiling proceedings."

5. In Village Officer v. Karnataka Fransalian

Society [2017 (2) KLT OnLine 2198] the Division Bench of

this Court held that whether the property is an exempted

property or its user is restricted which cannot be changed,

would be a matter that would separately come up for

consideration as the occasion may arise by its user, by the

purchaser or by any other person and those proceedings cannot

be pre-empted by any adverse entry in the possession

certificate. In Wayanad Granites v. District Collector [2023

(4) KLT 874], this Court held that revenue certificates need

not be denied for the reason that the land is part of exempted

land under the Kerala Land Reforms Act or on the ground that

no permission has been obtained to convert land under the

provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967.

6. In the light of the aforesaid decisions, I am of the view

that, the reason stated in Ext.P7 for rejecting the attested

survey sketch cannot be sustained. Accordingly, Ext.P7 is set

aside. There will be a direction to the respondents to issue

counter signed survey sketch, possession certificate,

demarcation certificate and non assignment certificate to the

petitioner, without making any adverse endorsement, within

one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this

judgment. It is made clear that, this Court has only considered

the question of issuance of survey sketch, possession

certificate, demarcation certificate and non assignment

certificate and has not expressed any opinion on the question

whether mining lease can be issued in respect of the land in

question. The issuance of these certificates shall not be treated

as a no-objection from the revenue authorities to start

quarrying operations over the land in question. It is also made

clear that the right of the Government in taking any action, in

case of violation of law, is also reserved.

The writ petition is disposed of. There will be no order as

to costs.

Sd/-

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE SB

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 886/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPOSITE CONSENT, DATED 15-6-

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE BEARING NO.30/1980, DATED 28-1-1982 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE BEARING NO.222/1984 DATED 18-7-1984 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE IN FAVOUR OF THE 3RD CONSENTER SMT.OMANA C.ELCY, BEARING NO.29/1982, DATED 28-1-1982 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE 4TH CONSENTER SMT.RAJOM C.MARY BEARING NO.28/1982, DATED 28-1-1982 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR ATTESTATION OF SKETCH SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED NIL Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18-11-2022 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.8401/2022, DATED 4-1-2023 Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.39353/2022 DATED 22-12-2022 Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.36894/2022 DATED 21-12-2022 Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT THROUGH A DIVISION BENCH REPORTED AS 2017(2) KLT ONLINE 2198