Abd Group vs The District Geologist
2025 Latest Caselaw 3430 Ker

Kerala High Court

Abd Group vs The District Geologist on 13 August, 2025

Author: Kauser Edappagath

Bench: Kauser Edappagath

WP(C) No.24390/2024



                                                2025:KER:60250
                                :1:




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

 WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1947

                      WP(C) NO. 24390 OF 2024

PETITIONER:

            ABD GROUP,
            WARD NO.8, KATTIPPARA PANCHAYAT, PULLANHIMADU
            ROAD, KANNUTTIPPARA, THAMARASERRY,
            KOZHIKODE - 673573, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
            PARTNER, SRI. RAJESAN

            BY ADVS.
            SHRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU
            SMT.NEENU BERNATH
            SHRI.SAJU S. DOMINIC




RESPONDENT:

            THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST,
            DISTRICT OFFICE, KOZHIKODE, DEPARTMENT OF MINING &
            GEOLOGY, 'C' BLOCK OF CIVIL STATION,
            KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020

            BY ADVS.
            SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JAFAR KHAN Y.
            SHRI.K.P.JAYACHANDRAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
11.08.2025, THE COURT ON 13.08.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.24390/2024



                                                            2025:KER:60250
                                    :2:




                           J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is a partnership firm represented by its

managing partner. It established a crusher unit in an extent of 1

Hectare of land owned by two partners in the year 2018-2019 with

necessary registration and licence as contemplated under the

Kerala Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Storage and

Transportation) Rules, 2015 (for short, the Rules, 2015). When the

registration expired, the petitioner submitted Ext.P8 application

for renewal of registration under Rule 10 of the Rules, 2015. The

respondent did not dispose of the application on the premise that

there is an endorsement in the possession certificate to the effect

that the land on which the unit is established was once exempted

under Section 81 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (for short,

the Act, 1963) for plantation. It is in these circumstances, the

petitioner has approached this court to give a direction to the

respondent to dispose of Ext.P8 application forthwith, without

referring to any objection as to exemption under Section 81(1)(e)

of the Act, 1963.

2. I have heard Sri.Philip J.Vettickattu, the learned counsel

2025:KER:60250

for the petitioner and Sri.Jafar Khan, the learned Senior

Government Pleader.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

there is no prohibition for converting or using the land which is

exempted under the provisions of the the Act, 1963 for any

purpose other than the purpose for which it is exempted and

hence the respondent is not justified in not granting renewal to

the petitioner. Reliance was placed on District Collector. v. Sajith

Lal (2023 KLT OnLine 1225), Additional District Magistrate v.

Augustin Joseph (2025 KLT OnLine 1772) and Tahsildar v.

M/s.Parathodu Granites Pvt Ltd. (WA No.1773/2022 decided on 1 st

August, 2025). On the other hand, the learned Senior Government

Pleader submitted that if a land which is exempted under the Act,

1963 is converted into any other purpose which are not exempted

under the said Act, such land would loose its exemption and will

be considered as excess land in view of Explanation II of Section

87 of the Act, 1963 and therefore, the land owner cannot be

permitted to utilize the land for other purposes. The learned

Senior Government Pleader further submitted that granting

permission to conduct quarrying operation or crusher unit in a

rubber plantation would violate the provisions of the Act, 1963

and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for renewal of

2025:KER:60250

registration. It is further submitted that exempted land, if

converted, will result in ecological imbalances and in such

circumstances, the very objective of the Act, 1963 would be

defeated.

4. The petitioner's crusher unit has been functioning from

2018-2019 onwards. Earlier when the revenue authorities were

approached for the purpose of applying for renewal of licence to

the unit, they refused to issue possession certificate on the

premises that the unit was established in a land which was

exempted under the provisions of the Act, 1963. The petitioner

then filed a writ petition before this Court as WP(C) No.5805/2021.

This court as per Ext.P11 order granted an interim order directing

to process the application and renew the licence if the application

was otherwise in order without insisting possession certificate of

the land. In view of Ext.P11 order, the respondent processed the

application and granted renewed licence. However, when the

petitioner applied for renewal again this time, the respondent was

not processing the application raising the very same objection.

5. Now it is trite by several judgments of this court that

there is no prohibition for converting or using the land which is

exempted under the provisions of the Act, 1963 for any purpose

other than the purpose for which it is exempted. The Division

2025:KER:60250

Bench of this Court in Sajith Lal (supra) has held that there is no

embargo under law in using any exempted land for non exempted

purposes. In Augustin Joseph (supra), another Division Bench

considered the question whether application for renewal of

explosives licence could be refused by referring to initiation of

proceedings under Section 81 of the Act, 1963. It was held that

unless and until the resumption proceedings under the Act, 1963

culminated, the District Magistrate under the Explosives Act and

the Rules cannot refuse to renew the licence. Recently, another

Division Bench in M/s. Parathodu Granites Pvt. Ltd (supra)

reiterated that there is no embargo under the Act, 1963 for using

the exempted land for any legal purpose. It was observed that if

the State wants to preserve the exempted land as a plantation for

ever, it is for the State to bring a suitable amendment to the

Kerala Land Reforms Act.

In view of the above consistent view taken by this Court, the

stand of the respondent that Ext.P8 application cannot be

considered since there is an endorsement in the possession

certificate to the effect that the land on which the unit is

established was once exempted from the ceiling limit under the

provisions of the Act, 1963 for plantation, cannot be justified.

Hence, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the

2025:KER:60250

respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P8 application for

renewal without referring to any objection as to exemption under

Section 81(1)(e) of the Act, 1963, within a period of two months

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. However, if

the Government is of the view that the land in question lost its

exemption as it is converted and used for non exempted purpose

in violation of the Act, 1963, it is at liberty to initiate appropriate

action for resumption of land under the provisions of the Act,

1963.

Sd/-

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE Rp

2025:KER:60250

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24390/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 18-7-2016 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DATED 20-2-2019, AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER RULE 5 OF CHAPTER III OF RULES, 2015 WITH RESPECT OF THE CRUSHER UNIT Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEALER'S LICENSE, DATED 18-4-2022, WHICH IS VALID UP TO 17-4-

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE GRAMA PANCHAYAT FOR CONDUCTING THE UNIT, WHICH IS VALID UPTO 31-4-2025 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE RENEWED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD WHICH IS VALID UP TO 31-10-2028 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE UDYOG AADHAR REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF MICRO, SMALL & MEDIUM ENTERPRISES SHOWING DATE OF COMMENCEMENT AS 15-3-2018 Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE GST REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE NO.32ABFFA6529A1Z0 DATED 27- 2-2018 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 3-4-2024 Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE E-TREASURY RECEIPT DATED 3-4-2024 SHOWING REMITTANCE OF RS.1,000/- TOWARDS APPLICATION FEE Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 30-3-2024 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.5805/2021 DATED 5-3-2021 Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN DISTRICT COLLECTOR V. SAJITHLAL (2023 KLT ONLINE 1225 DATED 3-

2025:KER:60250

3-2023 Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) 11647/2020, DATED 15-6-2020 Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 13- 10-2020 IN W.P.(C) NO.19817/2020 Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22-12- 2020 IN W.P.(C) NO.19817/2020 RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE MANAGING PARTNER OF ABD GROUP DATED 03.04.2024.

EXHIBIT R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.06.2024 OF THE 1st RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT R1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 102/2022 DATED 01.03.2023.

EXHIBIT R1(d) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN RP NO.

442/2023 DATED 11.04.2023.

EXHIBIT R1(e) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.08.2023 IN SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO.

14806-14807/2023.