IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2008 / 23RD SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 9943 of 2005(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- 1. PRAKASH JOHN, KUTTI THARAYIL, KATTANAM. 2. MINI PRAKASH, KUTTI THARAYIL, KATTANAM. 3. FRANCIS GEORGE, KUTTIYIL HOUSE, KATTANAM. 4. KUNJAMMA DAVID, KUTTIYIL HOUSE, KATTANAM. 5. JIVI JOSEPH, KUTTIYIL HOUSE, KATTANAM. 6. ZACHARIAH, PUSHPAPURATHU VEEDU, KATTANAM. 7. T.M.VARGHESE @ MATHAI VARGHESE, THOTTATIL VEEDU, VETTIKOTTU MURI, KATTANAM./ 8. ALEYAMMA MATHAI, THOTTATHIL VEEDU, VETTIKOTTU MURI, KATTANAM. 9. K.J.PHILIP, KOCHUVEETTIL, KOTTARKAVU, MAVELIKKARA. 10. K.P.MATHAI, KUTTIYIL HOUSE, KATTNAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KATTANAM. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(R.R.), MAVELIKKARA. 3. THE SUB COLLECTOR, CHENGANNUR. BY G.P. SMT.SMITHA SUKUMARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF R.R. NOTICE DT.23.2.2005. P2: COPY OF REPLY OF PETITIONER DT.7.5.2004. P3: COPY OF R.R. NOTICE DT.23.2.2005. P4: .DO. .DO. P5: COPY OF REPLY OF PETITIONER DT.30.4.2004. P6: COPY OF R.R. NOTICE DT.23.2.2005. P7: .DO. .DO. P8: COPY OF REPLY OF PETITIONER DT.7.5.2004. P9: COPY OF R.R. NOTICE DT.23.2.2005. P10: COPY OF REPLY OF PETITIONER DT.3.5.2004. P11: COPY OF R.R. NOTICE DT.23.2.2005. P12: COPY OF REPLY OF PETITIONER DT.3.5.2004. P13: COPY OF R.R. NOTICE DT.23.2.2005. P14: COPY OF REPLY OF PETITIONER DT.19.7.2004. P15: COPY OF R.R. NOTICE DT.23.2.2005. P16: .DO. .DO. P17: .DO. .DO. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.9943 of 2005 .................................................................... Dated this the 14th day of August, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioners are challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of royalty demanded from them for removal of clay from the paddy fields. While the case of the petitioners is that clay was removed to make the paddy field suitable for cultivation, the case of the respondents is that clay was removed without any authority and since clay is a minor mineral, royalty is payable to the Government. The petitioners' case is that adjudication has not been conducted and orders also have not been served on them. Copies of adjudication orders issued by the RDO under the Land Conservancy Act and Rules obtained by the Government Pleader show that such orders are issued in the prescribed form without considering the objections of the petitioners and without verifying the facts. Since the Minor Mineral Concession Rules authorise the Geologist to fix the royalty, I do not know how royalty happened to be demanded by the RDO who is the authority under the Land Conservancy Act. Before proceeding for recovery of demand of this nature, a proper adjudication has to be conducted under the statute and the Rules and in this regard, notice should be issued conveying 2 the information and data gathered by the department to conclude that petitioners have removed clay and thereafter, they should be given opportunity to file objections and adjudication orders should be issued only after hearing the petitioners and after entering clear finds on fact. The W.P. is accordingly allowed quashing the demand with direction to the third respondent to complete adjudication afresh. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms