The petitioner in this writ petition challenges Ext.P4 Government Order dated 11.11.2015.

2. By the aforesaid Government Order, the Government empowered the District Collector to grant permission to use the land assigned under the Kerala Land Assignment Act and Rules for the purpose of starting industrial units, quarry, crusher etc.

3. The petitioner's case is that, the Government had assigned land to the 5th respondent for agricultural purposes. Now an attempt is being made by the 5th respondent to use the land for mining disregarding the mandate under the Land Assignment Act and Rules. It is submitted that the mining operation being carried by the 5th respondent is in violation of the Land Assignment Act and Rules and same would be regularized through the District Collector.

4. The stand of the Government is that, in the light of Section 3 of the Land Assignment Act read with Rule 24 of the Rules, the Government is free to relax the condition on the original patta and to permit owner of the patta to utilise land for other purposes. It is further submitted that the Government, therefore, can permit mining in a land assigned for agricultural purposes.

5. The party respondent would contend that, the Government can pass such an administrative order in the absence of any statutory provisions. Further it is argued that, the grant of sub-soil rights would depend upon the conditions in the grant and sub-soil rights can be assigned by the Government.

6. The Government land is assigned for specified purposes under the Land Assignment Act. The patta holder, therefore, is entitled to use the surface of the land for the specified purposes, for which it was assigned. The pattadar has no ownership in the minerals below the surface of the land. In the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Shibu v. Thahsildar [1993 (2) KLT 870] it was held as follows :

"In the absence of an express covenant creating such an interest in the land, the Government's right to sole ownership of the minerals is not affected. The grant of sub-soil rights would depend upon the language used in the grant and that if there are no words in the grant from which the grant of the sub-soil rights could be properly inferred, the inam grant would only convey the surface rights to the grantee. The ryotwari pattadar has no ownership in the minerals below the surface of the land. The appellant's lessor and therefore the appellant cannot claim any right to the mineral on the ground that the lessor was a pattadar."

7. Section 3 of Land Assignment Act empowers the Government to assign land either absolutely or subject to restriction. The restriction may be in the nature of conditions as to the use of nature of the land. As per Rule 4 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964, the land can be assigned for the following purposes.

"4. Purpose for which land may be assigned. - Government lands may be assigned on registry for purposes of personal cultivation, house-sites and beneficial enjoyment of adjourning registered holdings."

Section 4 of the Assignment Act and Rule 12 of the Assignment Rules prescribes the procedure to be followed for the assignment of land.

4. Procedure to be followed before Government land are assigned.-

(1) When any Government land is proposed to be assigned by the prescribed authority, otherwise than by way of lease or licence, the Tahsildar of the taluk in which the land is situate or any officer empowered by the Government in this behalf shall notify in the prescribed manner that such land will, by public auction or otherwise, be assigned, and call upon those who have got any claim to such land to prefer to him their objections, if any, in writing, within a time which shall be specified in such notification.

(2) If any objection is preferred within the time specified in the notification, the Tahsildar or such other officer shall enquire into the same and pass an order in writing either accepting or rejecting the claim in full or in part and in