SAJI ULAHANNAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the issue involved in both these writ petitions, filed by the same petitioner, is common, they are taken up together for consideration, and disposed by this common judgment. The petitioner is stated to be engaged in the business of granite building stone, quarrying and crushing. He has been carrying on the said quarrying activities in land falling within the territorial limits of Konnathady Village in Idukki Taluk, pursuant to seven quarrying permits obtained by him from the respondents. Out of the seven quarrying permits, three quarrying permits are in respect of Government puramboke land and four quarrying permits are in respect of patta land. It is the case of the petitioner that, with effect from 07.12.2016, he has not been carrying on quarrying activities in the said lands since, the necessary environment clearance certificates have not been obtained by him from the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF). He, therefore, applied for and obtained a dealers license with effect from 05.12.2016 so as to remove the quarried rocks that were lying in his premises as on the date of stoppage of the quarrying activities. The said license was valid till 04.12.2017. When the petitioner thereafter proceeded to clear the stock of granite stones from his quarry, the village officer issued a stop memo dated 23.02.2017 preventing the said transportation of quarried granite rocks from his premises, on the contention that, inasmuch as the petitioner did not have any subsisting quarrying permit, he could not be permitted to clear the rocks from the quarry. This prompted the petitioner to approach this Court through W.P. (C). No. 6409/2017, which was disposed by quashing the stop memo issued by the Village Officer, and directing the Geologist to visit the premises of the petitioner, ascertain the pending stock of quarried material in his premises, and thereafter to permit the petitioner to remove the said stock of quarried material. The judgment of this Court in the said writ petition was rendered on 06.03.2017 but, immediately thereafter, when the petitioner obtained transit passes from the Geologist on 15.03.2017 for the purposes of transporting the quarried rocks from his premises, he was served with yet another stop memo dated 16.03.2017 from the Village Officer, preventing him from transporting the material from his quarries. It would appear that, immediately thereafter, the respondents also moved this Court for a review of the judgment dated 06.03.2017 in WP.(C). No. 6409/2017, and along with the review petition, produced a report of the sub Collector, which indicated that the petitioner had resorted to large scale quarrying activities from areas outside those covered by the quarrying permits issued to him. This Court, therefore recalled the judgment dated 06.03.2017 and thereafter passed an interim order dated 30.03.2017 in W.P. (C). No. 9598/2017 which had been filed in the meanwhile impugning the subsequent stop memo. The said interim order reads as follows:

(2.) During the pendency of the said writ petition, the petitioner was served with a notice dated 20.05.2017 by the Geologist, demanding an amount of Rs. 1,41,12,000/- towards royalty and fine and Ext.P5 demand notice from the Tahasildar, under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957, demanding Rs. 1,86,00,200/- towards fine for unauthorised removal of granite stones from Government Puramboke land. These demand notices are impugned in W.P.(C). No. 29872/2017.

(3.) Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents in both these writ petitions. In the counter affidavit, reliance is placed mainly on the report of the Sub Collector, which was forwarded to the District Collector, and on the basis of which the impugned stop memo and demand notices were served on the petitioner. A perusal of the report of the Sub Collector would indicate that, the allegation against the petitioner is essentially that he has been carrying on quarrying operations in areas outside those covered by the quarrying permits issued to him. Specific reference is made to the areas earmarked in the survey map produced as Ext.P10 in W.P.(C). No. 29872/2017 (also produced as Ext.R5(b) along with the counter affidavit of the respondent), to point out that, while the petitioner has admitted the encroachment into areas outside the leased areas, including the areas within the boundary pillars marked as BP-01, BP-02, BP-03 and BP-04, on the northern side, as also the pond area ear-marked outside the area encircled by boundary pillars BP-05, BP-06, BP-07 and BP-08, on the southern side, it is the further case of the respondents that, the actual lease area covered by the permits issued to the petitioner is shown in Ext.P10 by blue lines, which depict the boundary of the leased area. It is, therefore, the case of the respondents that, inasmuch as the petitioner is carrying on the quarrying activities outside the leased area, the quarrying activities carried on by the petitioner are illegal, and the demand raised by the respondents is legal and justified.