SAJITH LAL Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been issued with Ext.P1 letter of intent by the Geologist, Wayanad for undertaking quarrying activity in 0.9915 hectares of land in various re-survey numbers in Kalpetta Village in Wayanad District. The petitioner states that on the basis of the letter of intent, he has secured necessary licence from other authorities for the quarrying activities including consent from the Pollution Control Board and Environmental clearance certificate from the SEIAA. The petitioner is also in possession of Ext.P2 Explosive licence issued by the District Collector for using explosives not exceeding 25 Kgs., which was valid up to 31/3/2017. The petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application for renewal of the said licence before the 1st respondent-District Collector. The District Collector called for reports from various authorities. The 4th respondent, the Taluk Land Board submitted a report to the effect that the property where the renewal of explosive licence has been sought for was one that was originally exempted as a plantation under Sec. 81 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, the Act). The petitioner states that the 1st respondent has shown reluctance to renew the explosive licence solely on the ground that the property is one that was originally exempted as a 'plantation' under Sec. 81 of the Act. The petitioner also states that the licence was originally granted since there was no prohibition in converting the land that was originally granted an exemption under the Act. The petitioner relies on the decision of this Court in Kinallur Rock Sand vs. State of Kerala (2021 (2) KLT 351) wherein it was held that there is no prohibition in using the exempted land under the Act for different purposes. The petitioner submits that he is entitled for renewal of Ext.P2 explosive licence de hors the fact that the land was originally exempted as a plantation under Sec. 81 of the Act.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent stating that the property in question is a Coffee Plantation exempted under Sec. 81 of the Act and that any mode of quarrying in the area might result conversion of land which would be against the spirit of the Act.

(3.) Heard Sri. Rony Jose, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Jaffer Khan, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.