The main legal point established is that the transfer of Registry of the property in favor of the petitioner, based on the classification of the land, should be considered in the context of the petitioner's request for a Mining License.

JUDGMENT :

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

1. The Petitioner prays for a direction to the respondent Tahsildar to issue a Survey Map of his land, covered by Exts.P1 and P2, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court, so as to enable him to apply for a Mining License under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015, (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules” for short).

2. However, the learned Senior Government Pleader-Smt. K. Amminikutty, invited my attention to the Statement filed by the respondent, wherein, he has averred that a letter had been issued by him to the District Collector requesting for a verification as to whether the land in question enjoys exemption under Section 81 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (KLR Act). Smt. K. Amminikutty then added that a reply has been now received by the Tahsildar from the District Collector to the effect that transfer of Registry of the property in question can be allowed after verifying that it is deserving of enjoying exemption under the afore provision. She submitted that, therefore, the Tahsildar will now take a final decision on the petitioner's application, namely Ext. P3, after affording him an opportunity of being heard. She, however, submitted that there are certain other legal impediments standing in the way of the petitioner, but that the Tahsildar will consider all of them in terms of law, particularly as to the impact of the exemption enjoyed by the land under the KLR Act, while taking a final decision.

3. Shri Georgekutty Mathew, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the afore mentioned reply of the District Collector to the Village Officer, dated 11.03.2019, has been produced on record as Ext. P4, wherein, the latter Authority has been directed to effect the transfer of Registry of the property in question after verifying whether the land enjoys exemption under Section 81 of the KLR Act. He added that, pursuant thereto, when verification was done, it was found otherwise; and that the transfer of Registry of the property in question has been consequently effected in the name of his client, since it is a “garden land” and not a “plantation” which is also evident from Ext. P1 Tax Receipt and Ext. P2 Possession Certificate. He, therefore, prayed that the respondent be not allowed to raise any unnecessary legal hurdles in spite of the afore.

4. I find some force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner because if, pursuant to Ext.P4, the transfer of Registry of the property in question has already been effected in the name of the petitioner, finding the property to be a “garden land” and not a “plantation” then none of the afore legal impediments referred by the learned Senior Government Pleader, prima facie, would stand in the way of the petitioners' request, made in Ext. P3, being acceded to. However, I do not propose to say affirmatively on this since I am of the view that Tahsildar must consider all the aspects properly, after hearing the petitioner also.

5. Resultantly, I allow this writ petition to the limited extent of directing the respondent to take up Ext. P3 request of the petitioner, adverting to Ext. P4 communication of the District Collector, as also the further developments - including the transfer of Registry of the property in favour of the petitioner, and after affording him an opportunity of being heard, as also producing all necessary documents in his possession; thus culminating in an appropriate order thereon, as expeditiously as is possible but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

6. This writ petition is thus ordered.