JUDGMENT :

Vinod Chandran, J.

A batch of writ petitions challenged the recovery of damages equivalent to compensation under S.6(3) of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957, [for brevity, 'the KLC Act'] initiated by the Revenue Department. The damages were levied for quarrying operations carried out in excess of the quantity permitted. The appellant was also one of the petitioners. The major grounds raised by way of an amendment of the writ petition was that no quantity is prescribed under the lease agreement and hence the appellant, like the other quarry owners, were liable to pay only the amount under the consolidated royalty payment; which enables unlimited quarrying.

2. The Government contended that though the quantity is not prescribed in the lease, the amounts to be paid under the lease agreement is specified, as also the tonnage charges, which more than anything specifies the quantity permissible under the lease agreement. The learned Single Judge extracted S.6 of the KLC Act and also Rule 89 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 (MMC Rules, 2015). S.6 was found to be dealing with removal of articles by securing licence/permits from the Government and also prescribe