AUGUSTIN JOSEPH Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOZHIKODE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the 1st petitioner is the owner in possession of 20.235 Acres of land comprised in R.S.No.1/1 by virtue of registered assignment deed No.1406/2011 of Mukkom SRO. The 2nd petitioner is operating a quarry in the property owned by the 1 st petitioner on the basis of a consent granted by the 1st petitioner. It is stated that the 1st petitioner is running a rubber plantation in the entire extent of property and that a portion of the property owned by him is covered with granite rocks which is causing hindrance for development of rubber plantation. The 2 nd petitioner therefore sought permission to operate a quarry and remove the granite stones from the property. The 2nd petitioner has all requisite licences and had made Exhibit P5 application for renewal of quarry licence. Exhibit P5 was initially rejected by Exhibit P6 on the ground that Exhibit P7 letter of the Land Board stated that there were land ceiling proceedings initiated against the assignor of the property of the 1st petitioner and that therefore renewal of licence could not be considered. It is stated that the reference in Exhibit P7 letter is to Exhibit P8 judgment of this Court. The petitioner had challenged the rejection of the licence and by Exhibit P10 judgment, the petitioner was directed to be put on notice and heard and the matter was directed to be reconsidered. By Exhibit P11 order, the 2nd petitioner's request has again been rejected. This is under challenge.

(3.) The reason stated in Exhibit P11 order for rejection of the 2nd petitioner's application is to the effect that the land in which the quarry is sought to be operated is an exempted land in terms of Section 81 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (for short, 'the Act') and that the Chairman of the Taluk Land Board has informed that ceiling proceedings has been initiated against the assignor of the property. It is further stated that the use of portion of the property for quarrying would amount to conversion of the property and that therefore, the 2nd petitioner would not be entitled to operate a quarry in the premises. It is stated in Exhibit P11 that there is no permission to use any portion of the exempted land for any other purpose. The application was thus rejected.