IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH WEDNESDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 24390 OF 2024 PETITIONER:

ABD GROUP, WARD NO.8, KATTIPPARA PANCHAYAT, PULLANHIMADU ROAD, KANNUTTIPPARA, THAMARASERRY, KOZHIKODE - 673573, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI. RAJESAN BY ADVS.

SHRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU SMT.NEENU BERNATH SHRI.SAJU S. DOMINIC RESPONDENT:

THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOZHIKODE, DEPARTMENT OF MINING &

GEOLOGY, 'C’ BLOCK OF CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020 BY ADVS.

SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JAFAR KHAN Y.

SHRI.K.P.JAYACHANDRAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

11.08.2025, THE COURT ON 13.08.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a partnership firm represented by its managing partner. It established a crusher unit in an extent of 1 Hectare of land owned by two partners in the year 2018-2019 with necessary registration and licence as contemplated under the Kerala Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Storage and Transportation) Rules, 2015 (for short, the Rules, 2015). When the registration expired, the petitioner submitted Ext.P8 application for renewal of registration under Rule 10 of the Rules, 2015. The respondent did not dispose of the application on the premise that there is an endorsement in the possession certificate to the effect that the land on which the unit is established was once exempted under Section 81 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (for short, the Act, 1963) for plantation. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this court to give a direction to the respondent to dispose of Ext.P8 application forthwith, without referring to any objection as to exemption under Section 81(1)(e)

of the Act, 1963.

2. I have heard Sri.Philip J.Vettickattu, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Jafar Khan, the learned Senior Government Pleader.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no prohibition for converting or using the land which is exempted under the provisions of the the Act, 1963 for any purpose other than the purpose for which it is exempted and hence the respondent is not justified in not granting renewal to the petitioner. Reliance was placed on District Collector. v. Sajith Lal (2023 KLT OnLine 1225), Additional District Magistrate v. Augustin Joseph (2025 KLT OnLine 1772) and Tahsildar v. M/s.Parathodu Granites Pvt Ltd. (WA No.1773/2022 decided on 1^st August, 2025). On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that if a land which is exempted under the Act, 1963 is converted into any other purpose which are not exempted under the said Act, such land would loose its exemption and will be considered as excess land in view of Explanation II of Section 87 of the Act, 1963 and therefore, the land owner cannot be permitted to utilize the land for other purposes. The learned Senior Government Pleader further submitted that granting permission to conduct quarrying operation or crusher unit in a rubber plantation would violate the provisions of the Act, 1963 and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for renewal of registration. It is further submitted that exempted land, if converted, will result in ecological imbalances and in such circumstances, the very objective of the Act, 1963 would be defeated.

4. The petitioner's crusher unit has been functioning from

2018-2019 onwards. Earlier when the revenue authorities were approached for the purpose of applying for renewal of licence to the unit, they refused to issue possession certificate on the premises that the unit was established in a land which was exempted under the provisions of the Act, 1963. The petitioner then filed a writ petition before this Court as WP(C) No.5805/2021. This court as per Ext.P11 order granted an interim order directing to process the application and renew the licence if the application was othe