M/S Bruvs Minerals Pvt. Ltd. v. The Tahsildar Taluk Office, Kothamangalam Taluk Office, and The Village Officer, Neriamangalam Village, Ernakulam

# IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM # PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 30TH PHALGUNA, ## 1945 ## WP(C) NO. 17227 OF 2023 ## PETITIONER: M/S.BRUVS MINERALS PVT. LTD., AGED 54 YEARS MOONJELI, MANJAPRA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR VARGHESE M. A, PIN – 683 581. BY ADVS. PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU NEENU BERNATH ## RESPONDENTS: 1 THE TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK OFFICE, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 686 666. - 2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER NERIAMANGALAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 686 693. BY ADV. SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No. 17227 of 2023 : 2 : ## JUDGMENT The petitioner, a Private Limited Company, engaged in mining, crushing and allied business, states that, by Exts. P1 to P6 consent deeds, the owners of properties referred to therein have permitted the petitioner to conduct quarrying operations in their respective properties, each lying adjacent, and accordingly, the petitioner applied for demarcation certificate, non assignment certificate and attested sketch, before the 2[nd] respondent Village Officer, for the purpose of applying for mineral concession. The Village Officer issued Ext. P7 demarcation certificate stating that the land is surveyed and separated by fixing concrete pillars and iron fencing. However, it is W.P.(C) No. 17227 of 2023 : 3 : endorsed therein that the issuance of certificate will be subject to the legal proceedings proposed to be taken by the Special Officer vide G.O. (MS) 703/2015/RD dated 30.12.2015 and also the BTR reference of the land as Periyar Rubber Plantation. The Village Officer also issued Exts. P8 to P13 non-assignment certificates in respect of the land covered by the consent deeds, but with similar endorsement. As regards Ext. P14 application for attested sketch, the same was rejected by the Tahsildar, the 1[st] respondent by Ext. P15 communication stating that the land in respect of which the application has been submitted forms part of a land once exempted under the provisions of Section 81 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and therefore in W.P.(C) No. 17227 of 2023 : 4 : view of the circular issued by the Land Board Secretary and the judgment in W.P(C) No. 17884/2017, quarrying operations are not permitted in plantations exempted under the provisions of Section 81 of the Act. The petitioner submits that nonissuance of attested sketch and adverse endorsements on the demarcation certificate and non-assignment certificates as above, on the premise that the applied land forms part of a land once exempted under the provisions of Section 81 of the Act, are illegal and arbitrary. 2. A counter affidavit is filed by the 1[st] respondent reiterating their stand in the impugned order. It is also stated that the land was part of Periyar Rubber Plantations and to establish ownership W.P.(C) No. 17227 of 2023 : 5 : of the Government over the properties, it has been decided to file suit before competent Court for declaration of ownership and possession of land. 3. Heard Sri. Philip J. Vettikattu, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Deepa Narayanan, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no prohibition in using an exempted land for a different purpose under the KLR Act. The learned Senior Government Pleader argued in support of the impugned orders. 5. The Full Bench of this Court in Mathew K. Jacob and Another v. District Environmental Impact Assessment Authorit y [2018 (5) KHC 487: 2018 (4) KLT W.P.(C) No. 17227 of 2023 : 6 : 913: ILR 2018 (4) Ker. 868: 2019 (1) KLJ 49: AIR 2019 Ker. 67] held that there is no prohibition in using an exempted land for a different purpose under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The said judgment has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.H. Nazar v. Mathew K. Jacob [(2020) 14 SCC 126; 2019 (4) KHC 919] . In Kinallur Rock Sand v. State of Kerala and others (2021(2) KLT 351), a Single Bench of this Court, following the decision of the Full Bench in Mathew K. Jacob (supra), held that there is no prohibition in using an exempted land under the Kerala Land Reforms Act for a different purpose and if the exempted land is utilised for any other purpose, it may fall within one's ceiling area and the authorities may be able to initiate ceiling proceedings. However, W.P.(C) No. 17227 of 2023 : 7 : that cannot be a reason to decline permission for using the land for another purpose. In District Collector v. Sajith Lal (2023 KLT OnLine 1225), a Division Bench of this Court held as follows: “5. There is no embargo under law in using any exempted land for non- exempted purposes as well. If the land is used for non-exempted purposes, the holder of the land will lose the qualification for exemption, thus giving authority to the Land Board to initiate ceiling proceedings. The judgments cited at the Bar fortify the above legal proposition. The KLR Act provides no answer against conversion of the exempted land. Had it not been for the exemption, the land would have been included in the ceiling proceedings of the declarant for surrender. The only plausible conclusion in this situation is that the Land Board will be in a position to initiate ceiling proceedings.” ## 6. In Village Officer v. Karnataka Fransalian W.P.(C) No. 17227 of 2023 : 8 : Society [2017 (2) KLT OnLine 2198], a Division Bench of this Court held that whether the property is an exempted property or its user is restricted which cannot be changed, would be a matter that would separately come up for consideration as the occasion may arise by its user, by the purchaser or by any other person and those proceedings cannot be preempted by any adverse entry in the possession certificate. In Wayanad Granites v. District Collector [2023 (4) KLT 874] , this Court held that revenue certificates need not be denied for the reason that the land is part of exempted land under the Kerala Land Reforms Act or on the ground that no permission has been obtained to convert land under the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967. W.P.(C) No. 17227 of 2023 : 9 : 7. In the light of the aforesaid decisions, I am of the view that, the reason stated in Ext.P15 for rejecting the attested survey sketch cannot be sustained. Accordingly, Ext.P15 is set aside. There will be a direction to the respondents to issue counter signed survey sketch, demarcation certificate and non assignment certificate to the petitioner, without making any adverse endorsement, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. It is made clear that, this Court has only considered the question of issuance of survey sketch, demarcation certificate and non assignment certificate and has not expressed any opinion on the question whether mining lease can be issued in respect of the land in question. The issuance of these certificates W.P.(C) No. 17227 of 2023 : 10 : shall not be treated as no-objection from the revenue authorities to start quarrying operations in the land in question. It is also made clear that the right of the Government in taking any action, in case of violation of law, is also reserved. Besides, this judgment will not impede the right of the State to question the title, ownership and possession of the subject lands in any civil proceedings. The writ petition is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Sd/- ## MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN ## JUDGE SRJ W.P.(C) No. 17227 of 2023 : 11 : ## APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17227/2023 ## PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS - Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY SRI.ABDUL NAVAS, S/O. IBRAHIM BAVA, DATED 20-4-2023. - Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY SRI.SALIM, S/O.BAVA, AND HIS WIFE SMT.RAFIYA SALIM, TOGETHER, DATED 10-4-2023. - Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY ABDUL NISHAD, S/O.IBRAHIM BAVA, DATED 20-4-2023. - Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY SALIM, S/O.BAVA, ON BEHALF OF HIS WIFE SMT.RAFIA SALIM, DATED 10-42023. - Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY SRI.GOERGE THOMAS DATED 21-04-2023. - Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY POLY, S/O. VARGHESE DATED 20-04-2023. - Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMARCATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED WITH RESPECT TO THE APPLIED LAND DATED 25-4-2023. - Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NON-ASSIGNMENT CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER TO THE LAND OWNER VIZ. SRI.ABDUL NAVAS, S/O. IBRAHIM BAVA, DATED 25-4-2023. W.P.(C) No. 17227 of 2023 : 12 : - Exhibit P9 - TRUE COPY OF THE NON-ASSIGNMENT CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER TO LAND OWNER VIZ. SRI.SALIM AKATHOOT & RAFIA SALIM, DATED 25-4-2023. - Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE NON-ASSIGNMENT CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER TO THE LAND OWNER VIZ. SRI.ABDUL NISHAD, S/O.IBRAHIM BAVA, DATED 25-42023. - Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE NON-ASSIGNMENT CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER TO THE LAND OWNER VIZ. SMT.RAFIYA SALIM, DATED 25-4-2023. - Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE NON-ASSIGNMENT CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER TO THE LAND OWNER VIZ. SRI.GEORGE THOMAS, S/O.JOHN GEORGE, DATED 25-42023. - Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE NON-ASSIGNMENT CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER TO THE LAND OWNER VIZ. SRI. POLY, S/O.VARGHESE, DATED 25-4-2023. - Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR ATTESTATION OF SURVEY SKETCH DATED 18-4-2023 ALONG WITH THE SKETCH. - Exhibit P15 - TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 2-5-2023 BEARING NO.C/1-3549/23. W.P.(C) No. 17227 of 2023 : 13 : Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT THROUGH A DIVISION BENCH REPORTED AS 2017(2) KLT ONLINE 2198 (VILLAGE OFFICER V. KARNATAKA FRANSALIAN SOCIETY