IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2009 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 6505 of 2009(G) ------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- P.L.MOHANAN, S/O.PARAMESWARAN, AGED 51, LAKSHMI VILASOM, MANTHANAM MURI, KUNANTHANAM PO., MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.S.VAIDYANATHAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE (P) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE SUB COLLECTOR, THIRUVALLA. 4. THE ADDL.TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVALLA. 5. THE GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DISTRICT OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.6505/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT DT 20.11.2006 EXECUTED BETWEEN PETITIONER AND OTHERS WITH MINI PHILIP. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF PERMIT DT 1.1.2007 ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDNET GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DT 1.1.2008 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DT 23.1.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT 23.1.2008 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF REPORT DT 3.6.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DT 20.6.2008 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT 22.7.2008 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DT 3.10.2008 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MINISTER FOR REVENUE. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT 18.2.2009 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 6505 OF 2009 (G) ===================== Dated this the 26th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T The prayers sought in this writ petition are to quash Ext.P11 and to compell the 5th respondent to issue quarrying permit based on Ext.P4 application. 2. Petitioner states that in respect of the property covered by Ext.P1 agreement, he was issued Ext.P2, a quarrying permit. It is stated that the period of Ext.P2 had expired and therefore he sought extension of the period. Ultimately, the matter reached the Government and following the recommendation made by the District Collector, in Ext.P11, the Government took the view that the matter involves change of user of the land and therefore cannot be allowed. 3. A reading of Ext.P11 shows that in the revenue records, the land in question is entered as paddy field. It is also seen from Ext.P11 that according to the 1st respondent, if change is allowed, that will reduce the availability of paddy fields and therefore cannot be allowed. This appears to be the reason why the Government turned down the request of the petitioner. WPC 6505/09 :2 : 4. However, in Ext.P9, the letter of the District Collector to the Government, he has made reference to a report of the Revenue Divisional Officer to the effect that though the land in question was shown as paddy field in the revenue records, the land was in fact a rubber plantation and that in the neighbourhood, yielding coconut trees alone are available. It is also reported that in the nearby lands also sand mining has been permitted. 5. Thus, in effect the report given by the Revenue Divisional Officer about which reference is made in Ext.P9 is to the effect that apart from the description of the land as paddy field, it infact was not a paddy field, but was a rubber plantation, and that the trees were cut and removed and stumps are still there. If this be the factual position, the change that is sought is only formal and it is not going to result in reduction of the available extent of paddy field. If so, it is only appropriate that the Government should reconsider the matter taking into account the realities of the situation. 6. Therefore, I quash Ext.P11 and direct that the matter shall be reconsidered by the 1st respondent in the light of the WPC 6505/09 :3 : report of the Revenue Divisional Officer and Ext.P9 referred to above. Orders shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say that depending upon the order to be passed by the Government, further orders will be passed by the 5th respondent on the request of the petitioner for extension of the validity period of Ext.P2 mining permit, for which petitioner has made Ext.P4 application. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp