Exemption from land ceiling proceedings does not automatically preclude the issuance of revenue certificates, and such issuance does not confer permission for non-agricultural activities on exempted lands.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P3 communication issued by the 2nd respondent rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for certain revenue certificates on the ground that the land in respect of which the certificates are sought cannot be issued since the lands in question are lands which were exempted from land ceiling proceedings under Section 81(e) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the KLR Act). It is the case of the 2nd respondent that such certificates cannot be issued as the purpose for which certificates were sought was to process applications for obtaining permission for granite quarry.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the refusal on the part of the 2nd respondent to issue the revenue certificates in question is illegal and unsustainable in law. It is submitted that there is absolutely no bar under the KLR Act in utilising land exempted under Section 81 for any other purpose. It is submitted that the only consequence of conversion is that the said land will also be reckoned for the purposes of calculating the ceiling area. It is submitted that this is the law laid down by this Court in Mathew K. Jacob and another v. District Environmental Impact Assessment Authority; 2018 (5) KHC 487. Reliance is also placed in the judgment of this Court in Kinallur Rock Sand v. State of Kerala and others; 2021 (2) KLT 351. It is submitted that the judgment of the Full Bench has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in K.H. Nazar v. Mathew K. Jacob; (2020) 14 SCC 126. The learned counsel also places reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Village Officer v. Karnataka Fransalian Society; 2017 (2) KLT OnLine 2198 (Ext.P4) as also on Ext.P5 judgment of this Court in Jacob George @ Jaico George v. State of Kerala and others; (judgment dated 4.1.2023 in W.P.(C)No.8401/2022) in support of his contention.

3. The learned senior Government Pleader refers to the counter affidavit filed in this case and submits that the property in question is situated in hilly terrain in Wayanad District. It is submitted that the land belongs to 3rd parties and is leased out to the petitioner for the purposes of operating a granite quarry. It is submitted that Wayanad is an ecologically sensitive area, and almost 90% of the people in Wayanad depend on agriculture as a means of livelihood. It is submitted that the very purpose for giving exemption to plantations was to ensure that there was no fragmentation of plantations. It is submitted that the conversion of plantation land without considering the ecological and social situations and economic contribution of the plantation industry cannot be permitted. It is submitted that in the case on hand, apart from the fact that the land would lose exemption under Section 81(e) of KLR Act, the land is also a coffee plantation and therefore, no other activity can be carried out in the land without an order for conversion under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967. It is submitted that the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. and another v. State of Kerala and others; 2018 (2) KLT 369 as also the judgment of another Division Bench of this Court in One Earth One Life and others v. State of Kerala and others; 2019 KHC 221 is authority for the proposition that fragmentation of a plantation is to be treated as a case of conversion of plantation into some other category of land. It is also submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in State Human Rights Protection Centre and others v. State of Kerala and others; 2009 (3) KHC 682 has held that every exemption from ceiling provisions under the KLR Act has a purpose and even though there is no restriction on alienation of exempted category of lands, the assignee can also put the exempted lands only to the same purpose for which exemption was granted. It is submitted that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kunhik