M/s Chelakkara Granites vs Villageofficer Vaniyamkulam Village

Murali Purushothaman, J

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 2nd 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.

Heard Sri. Philip J. Vettikattu the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Jaffer Khan, learnd senior Government pleader for the respondents.

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.

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.”

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.

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.