The court held that previous objections based on the land being exempt cannot inhibit the issuance or extension of permits under the K.L.R. Act.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 3^rd day of December, 2025 In this Writ Petition, the petitioner impugns Exts.P16 and P22 Orders, the former dismissing an appeal preferred by the petitioner before the appellate authority, thus confirming rejection of petitioner's application for quarrying; and the latter, rejecting the petitioner's application for establishing an explosive magazine. The rejection of Exts P16 and P22 stems from the factual premise that the subject property of the petitioner was earlier part of a larger extent of land, which was exempted under Section 81 (1) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act ('K.L.R. Act', for short) and hence, the same cannot be put to use for any commercial or other purposes.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents.

3. This Court notice that Ext.P2 application preferred by the petitioner for quarrying lease was earlier rejected on the self-same premise under Section 81 (1)(e) of the K.L.R. Act, whereupon the petitioner approached this Court and obtained Ext.P4 Order directing the concerned respondent to process Ext.P2 application, without referring to the objection under (1) of the K.L.R. Act. Accordingly, petitioner was issued with Ext.P5 Letter of Intent, however limiting its validity to one year. The impugned Ext.P16 Order has been issued, when the petitioner approached the respondent again for extending the validity of the Letter of Intent, upon the expiry of the one year period stipulated therein. Ext.P22 is in the context of petitioner's application for establishing an explosive magazine. Both applications were rejected on the same premise of the land being an exempted one in terms of (1) of the KLR Act.

4. This Court is afraid whether the course adopted in Exts P16 and P22 could survive the test of law. The issue has been considered by this Court on several occasions, as could be seen from Exts.P6, P13, P15, P17, P18, P19 and P20 judgments. The specific issue was considered in the case of the petitioner itself, in Ext.P4 Order. If the very objection based on Section 81 (1) of the K.L.R. Act cannot stand in the way of issuance of the original Letter of Intent, then the same certainly cannot, once it comes to the extension of Ext.P5 Letter of Intent.

5. In the circumstances, Exts.P16 and P22 will stand quashed. There will be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to re-consider petitioner's application for extension of the validity of Ext.P5 Letter of Intent, without referring to the reasons shown in Ext.P16, as also, the objection based on Section 81 (1) of the K.L.R. Act. There will be a similar direction to the 4^th respondent to re-consider petitioner's application for establishing explosive magazine, again, without referring to the reasons stated in Ext.P22, as also, the objection based on (1) of the K.L.R. Act. The above direction shall be complied with by respondent nos.2 and 4 respectively within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the said respondents, for compliance.

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.