J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P10 order of the

2nd respondent-Director of Mining and Geology and seeks to direct the 2nd respondent to allow Ext.P7 application for issuance of quarrying lease in 4.9526 Hectares comprised in Re-survey No.415/PT3 in Varavoor Village in Thalappilly Taluk in Thrissur District.

2. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner’s land held 43.33.969 Acres of land. The Taluk Land Board exempted 26.47.969 Acres as rubber plantation and 15 Acres were allowed to be retained as Family property. The Taluk Land Board required the predecessor-in-interest to surrender 1.87 Acres of land as excess land, as per Ext.P1 Order.

3. The petitioner purchased 24 Hectares, 9 Ares and

11 square metres of land in Re-survey Nos.415/PT2, 415/PT3 and 415/PT4, in the name of petitioner’s wife. Ext.P3 is the Sale Deed relating to 24 Acres, 15 Cents of land comprised in Re-survey No.415.

4. The petitioner submitted application for Quarrying Permit to carry out quarrying operations in 4.9526 Hectares of land comprised in Re-survey No.415/PT3, out of Ext.P3 property. The petitioner submits that the said 4.9526 Hectares of property is part of the 15 Acres permitted to be retained as family property by the Taluk Land Board, as per Ext.P1 Order.

5. The petitioner was issued with Ext.P5 Survey Map and Ext.P6 Demarcation Certificate. Ext.P6 would reveal that the 4.9526 Hectares purchased by the petitioner has been measured and demarcated, placing concrete pillars at the boundaries. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 application for quarrying lease for the 4.9526 Hectares of property.

6. The Tahsildar, as per Ext.P8, informed the Director of Mining and Geology that it is not permissible to carry out mining in excess land allowed to be retained on exemption granted under Section 81(1)(e) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, as plantation. The 2nd respondent-Director passed Ext.P10 order stating that as the land in question is rubber plantation, mining operations cannot be permitted in the land.

7. The petitioner would argue that the law makers never intended to put any embargo for the use of 15 Acres family property allowed to be retained. The respondents overlooked this crucial aspect while rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner for quarrying lease.

8. The 5th respondent-Tahsildar filed a counter affidavit in the writ petition. The Tahsildar stated that as per Ext.R5(a) communication, the Secretary of the Taluk Land Board has informed that quarrying activities are not permitted in those lands which are exempted under the Kerala Land Reforms Act as rubber plantation.

9. The 5th respondent further submitted that the petitioner has never claimed earlier that the 4.9526 Hectares of land where permission for quarrying is sought, is part of the 15 Acres of property allowed to be retained as family property. Such claim is made for the first time in this writ petition. The 5th respondent further submitted that the land possessed by the petitioner exceeds ceiling limit and the matter has been reported to the Taluk Land Board for appropriate action.

10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader representing the respondents.

11. The arguments advanced and pleadings made in the writ petition would show that the petitioner had purchased 24 Hectares, 9 Ares and 11 square metres of land in Re- survey Nos.415/PT2, 415/PT3 and 415/PT4, in the name of his wife. The land, according to the petitioner, was part of the 15 Acres of land permitted to be retained as family property of the predecessor-in-interest, as per Ext.P1 order of the Taluk Land Board.

12. Certain extent of land possessed by the said predecessor-in-interest was granted exemption under Section 81 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, as the land being rubber plantation. Ext.P10 order has been passed rejecting the application of the petitioner for Quarrying Lease on the ground that no quarrying ac