AJAY Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in a suit for injunction is the appellant.

(2.) The plaint schedule property belongs to the plaintiff. There is a granite quarry in the vicinity of the plaint schedule property. As per Ext.A4 order, the Tahsildar of the concerned Taluk called upon the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs.92,550/- towards damages for the loss caused to the State on account of the unauthorised quarrying operations done by the plaintiff in a Government property. Ext.A4 order was issued by the Tahsildar to the plaintiff, in exercise of his powers under Section 6 of the Land Conservancy Act ('the Act' for short). According to the plaintiff, the third defendant is conducting quarrying operations in the quarry adjoining his property and that he has only permitted the third defendant to ply his vehicles through his property. The case set up by the plaintiff in the suit is that since he has not done any quarrying operations in any Government property, he is not liable to pay damages claimed from him. Hence, the suit for injunction restraining the defendants from initiating proceedings for recovery of the damages from him. Defendants 3 and 4 remained ex parte. The State and the Tahsildar who are defendants 1 and 2 in the suit filed a written statement, contending among others, that the plaintiff and his father removed granite stones from the Government property adjacent to the plaint schedule property without obtaining the requisite permissions and licences from the authorities concerned and that therefore, he is liable to pay the damages claimed from him to the State. Defendants 1 and 2 also contended that an appeal lies against Ext.A4 order under Section 16 of the Act and in the light of the said right of appeal, the suit is not maintainable in view of the provision contained in Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act. The trial court found that in view of the right of appeal provided against Ext.A4 order, the suit is not maintainable and consequently, dismissed the suit. The appellate court found on facts that the plaintiff is liable to pay damages to the State as provided for under Section 6 of the Act and consequently confirmed the decision of the trial court. The plaintiff, who is aggrieved by the concurrent decisions against him has thus come up in this second appeal.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.