IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 29TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 3501 of 2007(P) ------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. VASUDEVAN, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNAN, ALUMMOODU, VAYALA MURI, KOTTUKKAL VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM. 2. OMANA, W/O. VASUDEVAN, ALUMMOODU, VAYALA MURI, KOTTUKKAL VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.PRATHEESH.P, SRI.A.MUHAMMED RAFFI. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM. 3. ADDITIONAL THAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KOTTARAKKARA. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SHAMSUDHEEN.P.K. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.3501/2007-P: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C). NO.34564/04. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE NOTICE. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 03/02/07 ISSUED BY THE R.3. TO THE P.1. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 03/02/07 ISSUED BY THE R.3. TO THE P.1. UNDER SECTION 7. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 03/02/07 ISSUED BY THE R.3. TO THE P.2. UNDER SECTION 7. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Prv. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 3501 of 2007 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 20th day of September, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioners unauthorizedly removed clay from certain properties in respect of which proceedings were initiated and Ext.P2 order was passed directing the petitioners to pay royalty including fine amounting to Rs. 34,240/-. The petitioners challenged the same in W.P(C) No. 34564/2004. By Ext.P3 judgment, the petitioners were relegated to the remedy by way of appeal and was directed to remit an amount of Rs.10,000/- as a condition for stay. Pursuant thereto, Ext.P4 order was passed by the Commissioner of Land Revenue confirming Ext.P2 order and rejecting the appeal. In accordance with same, Ext.P5 demand was also issued for the balance amount of Rs. 24,240/- with 8% interest thereon. The petitioners challenge the same. 2. The petitioners raise two contentions. The first is that the petitioner did not sell the clay and used the same only for levelling their property. The second is that there is no provision for realising interest and therefore the demand for interest at 8% is also unsustainable. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent contending that the levelling of the land by the petitioners was subsequent, which was the finding in the impugned orders also and therefore the petitioners' contention that they did not remove the clay for sale is not correct. As far as the interest is concerned, the learned Government Pleader would argue that for delayed payment, interest is very much in order insofar as W.P(C) No. 3501 of 2007 -: 2 :- the petitioners have succeeded in prolonging payment for years, for which the State has to be adequately compensated. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. Admittedly, the petitioners have mined the clay. The petitioners' only contention is that they did not remove the clay for sale. But the fact finding authority has found that the contention of the petitioners that clay was used for levelling of land is false since the levelling was much later. Such a finding of fact cannot be interfered with by this Court unless the petitioners allege mala fides in the matter, which the petitioners do not. The lower authorities have as a matter of fact, entered a finding that the petitioners had in fact unauthorisedly removed the clay. Therefore, naturally the petitioners have to pay royalty and fine in respect thereof which only has been demanded as per the impugned orders. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the challenge against the orders of the lower authority. 6. As far as the question of interest is concerned, insofar as the petitioners have delayed payment, I do not find anything wrong in collecting interest also. In view of the above findings, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- . Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/