IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 1ST ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 26985 of 2010(W) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- K.J.THOMASKUTTY, PROPRIETOR, M/S.MODERN ROACK MINING INDUSTRY, KOMPANOLI, VADASSERIKKARA, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADVS. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, SMT.INDU SUSAN JACOB. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THAHSILDAR, RANNY, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. GEOLOGIST, OFFICE OF MINING & GEOLOGY, PATHANAMTHITTA. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.K.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss 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