[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Jafar P.T vs The District Geologist on 26 December, 2025
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
2025:KER:98863
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 5TH POUSHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 48445 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
JAFAR P.T
AGED 47 YEARS
SON OF HASSAINAR HAJI,
PULIMANTHODI, THOOTHA P.O.,
ALIPARAMB VILLAGE, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679357
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ
SRI.IRFAN ZIRAJ
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST
OFFICE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
DISTRICT OFFICE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678001
2 THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, STATE OF KERALA,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 DEPUTY TAHASILDAR
OTTAPALAM TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679101
2025:KER:98863
WP(C) No.48445 of 2025
2
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
CHERUPPLASSERY VILLAGE,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679503
SMT VIDHYA A.C.,GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 26.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:98863
WP(C) No.48445 of 2025
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 26th day of December, 2025
The petitioner states that the 1st respondent issued
Ext.P1 order to the petitioner without hearing the petitioner
and thereby imposed a sum of ₹1,01,00,000/- towards
royalty, fine and cost of the materials, for alleged extraction of
laterite building stone from his property.
2. The property of the petitioner is having an extent of
12.14 Ares comprised in Survey No.69/8, but the Survey
Number of the property shown in Ext.P1 is 69/2, which is the
adjacent property of petitioner. From the impugned order, it is
understood that the 1st respondent charged against the
petitioner for the alleged extraction of laterite building stone
from the adjacent plot. Aggrieved by Ext.P1, the petitioner
submitted Ext.P2 Statutory Appeal before the 2nd respondent
after paying sufficient fee.
2025:KER:98863
3. The said Appeal is still pending. Stay petition
submitted by the petitioner is also not considered by the 2nd
respondent. In the meantime as directed by the 1st
respondent, the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P6 revenue
recovery notice and thereby the 3rd respondent is trying to
recover the movable and immovable property of petitioner for
the alleged arrears. Hence, the petitioner approached this
Court seeking to direct the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P2
Appeal within a reasonable period.
4. Heard.
5. From the pleadings I find that the petitioner has
preferred Ext.P2 Appeal before the 3rd respondent in this
regard.
6. In the facts of the case, it would be only just and
proper that the 2rd respondent considers the same and passes
appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law within a
2025:KER:98863
reasonable time.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the
2nd respondent to consider Ext.P2 Appeal and pass orders
thereon within a period of two months.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH
JUDGE
hmh
2025:KER:98863
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 48445 OF 2025
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED
25.9.2024 ISSUED BY THE FIRST
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER ALONG
WITH READABLE COPY
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED
29.11.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT WITHOUT
DOCUMENTS
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CHELAN DATED
3.12.2024 FOR PAYMENT OF FEE TOWARDS
EXHIBIT P2 APPEAL
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT
TOWARDS EXHIBIT P2 APPEAL
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.4.2025
ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY
NOTICE DATED 26.11.2025 ISSUED BY THE
THIRD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS
HONORABLE COURT DATED 24.8.2022 IN WPC
NO.27135 OF 2022
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS
HONORABLE COURT DATED 28.7.2025 IN WPC
NO.27444 OF 2025
