AJITHKUMAR G Vs. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT TRIVANDRUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVENUE recovery proceedings evidenced by Ext.P6 are under challenge in this writ petition. Petitioner is the owner of 1 acre of land comprised in Sy. No.749/325 and 58 cents in Sy. No.749/02 of Sooranad Village in Kollam District. He was issued Ext.P2 notice where the 3rd respondent alleged that the petitioner illegally mines bauxite from his property comprised in Sy. No.749/325. In reply the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 denying the allegation contained in Ext.P2 notice.

(2.) AGAIN he was issued Ext.P4 notice reiterating the allegations to which the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 reply, once again denying the allegation against him. According to the petitioner without conducting any further enquiry or hearing him revenue recovery proceeding were initiated by Ext.P6 notice for realizing an amount of Rs.1,70,859/-. It was at that stage the writ petition is filed.

(3.) THUS on the one hand petitioner is denying the allegation of bauxite mining which is disputed by the respondents and the respondents are seeking to fasten liability for the same on the petitioner. The dispute which is raised in the writ petition therefore involves several disputed questions of fact which are incapable of resolution in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In my view, in the nature of the dispute raised the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to invoke the appellate remedy as provided in Section 30 of the Act.