Hrishikesh Roy, J.

Heard Sri. Harish Vasudevan, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri. Nagaraj Narayanan, Special Government Pleader (Forest), appears for the State authorities. Learned Senior Counsel, Sri. S.Sreekumar represents respondents 13, 14 and 22. The additional respondent No. 24 is represented by Sri. Bechu Kurian Thomas, learned Senior Counsel. The learned counsel Sri. T.M. Chandran represents the respondent No.15.

2. The petitioner is a registered voluntary organisation, working towards the protection and improvement of forest areas and to safeguard the interest of environment in Kerala. The focus of their interest in this case is the conservation of the hill, “Muniyattukunnu”, which is part of Reserve Forest and where quarrying activities of respondents 13 to 23 are going on, destroying the forest and endangering the “Dolmens” or “Muniyaras”, which are ancient monuments of Megalithic Era.

3. The Muniyattukunnu hillock is situated in Varantharappilly Panchayath in Mupliyam Village in Thrissur District and the concern for the preservation and protection of “Muniyaras” or “Dolmens” in the area has also been expressed to the District Collector, by the Archaeological Survey of India, through their communication of 3.9.2013, Ext.P1. In this letter, the 4th respondent stated that the quarrying and mining activities in the ancient site are posing threat to the protected monuments and such damaging activities must be prevented, under the Kerala Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the “Monuments Act, 1968”).

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS

4.1. The petitioner contends that the respondents are operating quarrying or mining units in Mupliyam Village, which is categorised as a forest land. While a portion of the forest land has been specially assigned for limited use like dwelling home, shop and cultivation, the mining lease and quarrying permits in the area have been illegally granted by disregarding the obligation to protect forest and also to augment afforestation, in the denuded areas.

4.2. The copies of the pattas granted under Ext.P2 series are referred to by the petitioner to project that those pattas were issued under the Kerala Land Assignment (Regularisation of Occupation of Forest Lands prior to 1.1.1977) Special Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as “the Assignment Special Rules, 1993”) and only a limited right of utilising the surface land for dwelling house/cultivation/shop is allowed, while the Government have reserved for itself, the sub-soil rights in the assigned land.

4.3. According to the petitioner, the categorisation of land continues to remain Reserve Forest and accordingly it is submitted that not only this area cannot be utilised for granite stone quarrying purpose, but the patta itself stipulates the obligation of the assignee to protect the already identified standing trees, on the assigned land. It is further contended that despite the patta, the right over the trees within the patta land, rests with the Forest Department and according to the petitioner, the quarry activities have resulted in wanton destruction of the standing trees and it has also posed a serious threat to the “Dolmens” which are required to be protected under the Monuments Act, 1968.

4.4. The land where the quarrying activities are carried out, is part of Kodassery Reserve Forest, where limited rights were granted to the encroachers by issuing patta under the Assignment Special Rules, 1993, but the status of the land continues to be Reserve Forest land. Under Rule 3, such patta land can only be used for agriculture or for construction of house or for construction of shops and while alienation of the land is permitted, the transferee cannot use the land for any other purpose, than those specified in Rule 3 of the Assignment Special Rules. It is thus argued that utilising