The use of exempted land for purposes other than agriculture under Section 81 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act may affect only the exemption granted and does not justify refusal to grant possession certificates if previously issued for similar purposes.

JUDGMENT :

The 1st petitioner is the owner of an extent of 13.51 hectares of land in Koodathai village of Thamarassery taluk. The property of the first petitioner is a rubber plantation wherein there is a rock formation in 24 cents of land. The first petitioner has leased out this 24 cents of land in favour of the second petitioner for quarrying operation. The 1st petitioner is paying land tax for the property. Exhibit P2 is the consent issued by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board on 22.7.2015 (valid up to 5.2.2016) for the purpose of conducting quarrying operations. The Mining and Geology Department has issued Ext.P3 quarrying permit for the extraction of granite stones in favour of the second petitioner. The second petitioner was conducting quarrying operations up to 27.9.2017. According to the 1st petitioner, the 24 cents of land where there is a rock formation, cannot be used for agricultural purposes. Ext.P5 is the possession certificate issued on 6.6.2015 by the 4th respondent with respect to the 24 cents of land. Ext.P6 is the possession certificate issued by the 4th respondent on 20.8.2016, for production before the Pollution Control Board.

2. When the petitioner applied for a possession certificate for making a fresh application for quarrying operations, the application was rejected as per Ext.P7 order dated 16.2.2022, stating that the property of the 1st petitioner was a plantation that had been exempted under Section 81 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The writ petition has been filed challenging the above order. Reliance is placed by the petitioner on the decision in Kinalur Rock Sands v. State of Kerala & Ors. reported in (2021 (2) KLT 351). A learned Single Judge had relied on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Mathew K. Jacob & Anr. v. District Environmental Impact Assessment Authority, Kottayam (2018 (5) KHC 487) and held that there is no prohibition in using an exempted land for a different purpose under the Kerala Land Reforms Act.

3. In W.P.(C) No.28251 of 2018, this Court had considered a similar issue when the renewal of D&O licence for conducting a crusher unit was rejected on the ground that the property in question was exempted under the Land Reforms Act. This Court relied on the decision in Kinalur (supra) and Mathew Jacob (supra) and found that the consequence of user of exempted lands under the Kerala Land Reforms Act for other purposes would only be that the extent of such land will also get added to the total extent of the lands held by the person and the ceiling area may have to be re-worked, treating the land as not exempted. The judgment of the Full Bench in Mathew Jacob (supra) has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.H. Nazar v. Mathew K. Jacob, (2020) 14 SCC 126).

4. Sri Jaffer Khan, Senior Government Pleader submitted that though a learned Single Judge had in Elias T.V. & Ors. v. Sub Collector, Wayanad & Ors., 2019 (2) KHC 881 held that the revenue authorities are not justified in refusing to issue revenue certificates for the reason that the lands were exempted lands under Section 81 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, a Division Bench of this Court has stayed the operation of the judgment in W.A. No.1305 of 2020 filed against the said judgment. It is submitted that such interim orders have been issued in W.A. Nos.2299 of 2019, 1726 of 2021, and 1308 of 2021 as well, in similar circumstances.

5. The contention of the Senior Government Pleader cannot be countenanced in view of the categoric finding of the Full Bench of this Court in Mathew Jacob (supra) and affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.H. Nazar (supra). So long as the user of exempted land for other purposes can only affect the exemption granted and entail re-working of the ceiling area and excess land, the petitioner cannot be refused grant of a possession certificate. This is all the more so since such certificates were granted earlier for the same purposes.

6. The writ petition is allowed. Ext.P7 is quashe