IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2011 / 11TH MAGHA 1932 WA.No. 74 of 2011() ------------------- ( AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.32403/2010 ) APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------- K.S.ABDUL KAREEM, PROPRIETOR, K.S.GRANITES, NADUVATTOM P.O., KANNIMANGALAM, KALADY, PIN-683 574. BY ADV. SRI.M.M.ABDUL AZIZ, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: --------------- THE TAHSILDAR, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 101. BY ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL SHRI RANJITH THAMPAN BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. HANAL KUMAR. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J. CHELAMESWAR, CJ & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.A.No. 74 OF 2011 ......................................................................... Dated this the 31st January, 2011 J U D G M E N T P.R. Ramachandra Menon,J. The cause of action in this Writ Appeal takes its origin to the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.(C)No 9605 of 2008, wherein Ext.P5 judgment has been passed, ordering cancellation of patta in respect of persons for conducting quarrying after getting the land for effecting rubber cultivation 2. The appellant/writ petitioner herein was assigned 29.25 acres of land in Malayattoor village in R.S.No.24/6 as per Patta No.71/1970- for effecting rubber cultivation; which however was admittedly made use of for running a stone crusher unit. Meanwhile, cases involving similar lands assigned by the Government for effecting rubber cultivation and the user effected by the concerned authorities for effecting quarrying operation in the said lands (instead of rubber cultivation) came W.A.No. 74 OF 2011 2 to be dealt with by this Court. As per Ext.P5 judgment in W.P.(C) 9605 of 2008, this Court directed the concerned authorities to cancel the 'patta' issued in the particular case in view of the violation, as aforesaid. Further direction was given to take similar action in respect of similarly situated persons who are running the quarrying operation in the lands assigned for rubber cultivation. The third direction was to take appropriate action against the concerned persons, who had violated the terms of the assignment. The said verdict was subjected to challenge by filing an appeal, wherein Ext.P6 verdict was passed on 25.08.2009, whereby the scope of the said verdict was confined to the 'particular land'. Later, a Review petition was also filed, which led to Ext. P7 order clarifying that the 'particular land' was the land covered by Ext. R5(a) patta therein. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the matter was taken up before the Apex court in SLP(Civil) No.527 of 2010, which was disposed of, making it clear that the appellant therein will not be debarred from applying for quarrying licence with respect to the resumed land. W.A.No. 74 OF 2011 3 3. In the course of the proceedings the land assigned to the petitioner/appellant was also considered by the concerned authorities, who issued Ext. P8 order dated 24.07.2010 whereby the patta already issued was cancelled, which was followed by Ext. P10 'stop memo' with regard to operations of the crusher unit. This made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.32403 of 2010 culminating in the impugned judgment. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has already relegated the writ petitioner to avail the statutory remedy in respect of cancellation of 'patta' and that the petitioner/appellant in fact has availed the said remedy. It is stated that the writ petitioner is however aggrieved of the further direction by way of clarification given in paragraph No.4 of the impugned judgment, whereby it is stated that the judgment will not enable the petitioner to operate the crusher unit. The learned counsel also brought it to the notice of this Court that a similar issue in respect of 'quarrying' operations has already been considered by a Division Bench of this Court. W.A.No. 74 OF 2011 4 As borne by the judgment dated 01.12.2010 in W.A.No. 1164/2010 ( a copy of which has been placed for perusal of this Court), it has been conceded from the part of the Government that quarrying operation is possible and permissible in respect of such lands, which are unfit for rubber cultivation and that it is a matter of policy of the Government to permit quarrying, if the land assigned is unfit for cultivation. 5. Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find that the operation being pursued by the petitioner /appellant is only running of a 'crusher unit'. It is also stated that such operation is being pursued on the basis of Exts. P1 to P4 licences/certificates issued by the concerned authorities. It is further evident that the appeal preferred by the petitioner as directed by the learned Single Judge is still to be finalised by the Government. In the said circumstances, we do not find any reason to restrain the petitioner from operating the crusher unit. In the above circumstances, we dispose of the Writ Appeal directing the Government to finalise the matter, as already W.A.No. 74 OF 2011 5 directed by the learned single Judge, however, making it clear that the clarification given in para 4 of the said judgment disabling the petitioner to operate the crusher unit on the strength of Exts. P1 to P4 proceedings, will stand deleted. Such operation shall, of course, be subject to all the requisite licences and also subject to the final orders to be passed by the Government in the appeal, as aforesaid. J. CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk