IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 26985 of 2010(W)
1. K.J.THOMASKUTTY, PROPRIETOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THAHSILDAR, RANNY, PATHANAMTHITTA.
3. GEOLOGIST, OFFICE OF MINING & GEOLOGY,
For Petitioner :SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :23/09/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 26985 of 2010 W
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P4, a
prohibitory order issued by the second respondent. This
order has been issued by the second respondent on the
allegation that under the cover of the quarrying lease in
respect of R.S.No.316/6 of Vadasserikara village, petitioner
has been quarrying in the government property comprised in
R.S.No.316/4 and, therefore, until the properties are
measured and demarcated, the quarrying should be stopped.
2. Ext.P1 is a quarrying lease issued to the petitioner.
According to the petitioner, the Survey Number of his
property, which originally had an extent of 0.3340 hectres,
was 702/1 Part. It is stated that the property was re-surveyed
and was assigned as R.S.No.316/4. Petitioner claimed that
the quarrying lease was in respect of the property in
R.S.No.316/4, and, therefore, Ext.P4 is illegal.
WPC.26985/10
: 2 :
3. However, from the documents produced by the
respondents along with their counter affidavit, it would appear
that the property comprised in R.S.No.316/4, included both
petitioner’s property as also the government property, which
on application made by the petitioner himself was again
surveyed and sub divided into R.S.No.316/4, 316/6 and
316/7. In the reply affidavit, petitioner also accepts the
position that the property covered by Ext.P1 quarrying lease is
now situated in R.S.No.316/6. If that be so, quarrying on the
strength of Ext.P1 quarrying lease can only be in the
petitioner’s property comprised in R.S.No.316/6 and he
cannot do any quarrying in R.S.No.316/4.
4. In view of the allegation contained in Ext.P4 that on
the strength of the quarrying lease, the petitioner quarried in
the government property comprised in R.S.No.316/4 and as
admittedly, the quarrying lease is in respect of R.S.No.316/6,
the second respondent cannot be faulted for directing that a
survey has to be conducted and the property should be
WPC.26985/10
: 3 :
demarcated before the petitioner proceeds with the quarrying
in his adjacent property comprised in R.S.No.316/6.
5. From the submissions made by both sides, it is
evident that the extent of property in R.S.No.316/6 is less than
0.35 hectres and the property in R.S.No.316/4 is little over 2
hectres. Therefore, survey of this property cannot take much
time and having regard to the fact that on account of Ext.P4,
the establishment of the petitioner is lying closed, the survey
has to be completed expeditiously. Therefore, I direct that
once the petitioner produces his title deeds as directed in
Ext.P4, the second respondent will ensure that the survey as
proposed in Ext.P4 is completed at any rate, within two weeks
thereafter.
6. Petitioner now complains that in addition to Ext.P1,
he also holds Exts.P7 and P7(a) quarrying leases bearing
Nos.24/07 and 25/07. It is stated that although Ext.P4 does
not pertain to an area covered by Exts.P7 and P7(a), on the
strength of Ext.P4 he is forced to close down those quarries
WPC.26985/10
: 4 :
also.
7. There is no allegation in Ext.P4 pertaining to the
areas covered by Exts.P7 and P7(a) and the operation of
Ext.P4 is confined to the area covered by Ext.P1 quarrying
lease. Therefore, Ext.P4 cannot have any impact on Exts.P7
and P7(a). In that view of the matter, it is directed that the
respondents shall not prevent the petitioner from carrying on
his quarrying activities in the areas covered by Exts.P7 and
P7(a) on the strength of Ext.P4.
8. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment
before the second respondent for compliance.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
aks