IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2009 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 7149 of 2009(K) ------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. M.E.MOHANAN, S/O.KADUNGAN, AGED 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT VISHNU NIVAS, KARAD PARAMBU P.O., VIA FEROKE COLLEGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 632. 2. SUJA, W/O.M.E.MOHANAN, AGED 35, RESIDING AT VISHNU NIVAS, KARAD PARAMBU P.O., VIA FEROKE COLLEGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 632. BY ADVS. MR.HARISH R. MENON, MR.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE TAHASILDAR, ERNAD, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, VAZHAYUR VILLAGE OFFICE, VAZHAYUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. ABDUL MAJEED, S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY HAJI, KANNAMANGALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. MOIDEEN KOYA, S/O.BICHU MOIDEENKUTTY, CHALIYAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 6. SASIKUMAR, S/O.BAGYACHANDRAN ERADI, VAZHAYOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. M.A. ASIF, R5 BY ADVS. MR.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR), MR.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/03/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.7149/2009-K: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION ISSUED BY THE SALE TAX OFFICER, MANJERI DTD. 25/09/2007. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORM ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, MALAPPURAM DTD. 25/04/1997. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE CONSENT AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY VEERAN MOIDEEN HAJI AND OTHERS IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER DTD. 30/02/2008. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. NO. 12780/2002. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VAZHAYUR. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE LICENCE TO POSSESS EXPLOSIVES, ISSUED BY THE JOINT CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE VAZHAYUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT DTD. 19/05/2008. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE GEOLOGIST, MALAPPURAM DTD. 27/02/2008. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE R.3. TO THE VDNDOR. EXT.P.11: LIKEWISE THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE EXECUTANTS OF ANOTHER SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DTD. 07/04/2007 ISSUED BY THE R.3. EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE R.3. DTD. 15/07/2008. EXT.P.14: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R.2. DTD. 17/12/2008. EXT.P.15: COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DTD. 07/04/2007 HAVING NO. 2038/2007 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VAZHAYUR TO THE P.1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R5.A: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 1594 DTD. 04/06/99. W.P.(C). NO.7149/2009-K: EXT.R5.B: COPY OF THE ORDER IN A.A. 40/01 DTD. 20/09/04 OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY (L.R) THRISSUR. EXT.R5.C: COPY OF THE ORDER IN A.A. 41/01 DTD. 20/09/04 OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY (L.R) THRISSUR. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 7149 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioners are aggrieved by Exhibits P14, an order passed by the second respondent rejecting Exhibit P13, application made by the petitioners for the issue of possession certificate. Reasons stated in Exhibit P14 for rejecting the request are that a civil dispute is pending against the petitioner and that a complaint has been made by the 5th respondent. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the first petitioner claims ownership over 4.5 Acres of land in R.S Nos. 155/1, 2,154/15,16 in Block 6 of Vazhayur Village, Malappuram District. First petitioner also claims to be in possession of 50 cents of land belonging to one Shri. Veeran Moidden Haji. It is also stated that the second petitioner is in possession of 1.42 acres of land in RS No.155/1 and 154/15 of Vazhayoor Village. According to the petitioners, the first petitioner was conducting a quarry in the aforesaid lands of himself and the second petitioner. Exhibit P6 is the Explosives lincense. Exhibit P7 is the certificate issued by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. Exhibit P8 is the licence issued by the Panchayath and Exhibit P9 is the permit issued W.P.(C) No. 7149 / 2009 2 under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules. Petitioners submit that period of Exhibit P9 mining permit is expiring on 20/5/2009 and in order to seek its renewal, Exhibit P13 application was made to the second respondent for issuing a possession certificate. It was declining Exhibit P13, the second respondent passed Exhibit P14 order and challenging Exhibit P14, the writ petition is filed. 3. Counsel for the petitioners contend that total extent of 6.12 acres of land belonging to him and second petitioner is in its possession and that he is conducting quarrying in the said premises. In so far as, respondents 5 and 6 are concerned, it is stated that the first petitioner had filed O. S No. 182 /01 on the file of the Munsiff’s Court, Parappanangadi and that an order of temporary injunction granted by said court is still in force. It is stated that by virtue of the fact the Civil Court has recognised his possession over the property, possession certificates were being issued in the past and on the strength of which, he has been getting the Mining Permit renewed periodically. W.P.(C) No. 7149 / 2009 3 4. According to him, there is no reason to decline possession certificate and therefore, this writ petition is filed. 5. Counsel for the respondents 4, 5 and 6 disputes the claim of the petitioners. According to him, the property which is allegedly in the possession of the petitioners has not been identified so far and it forms part of a larger extent of more than 20 acres. He also contends that basic document of title which the original owner of the four acres allegedly owned by the first petitioner is a purchase certificate issued by the Land Tribunal III, Malappuram and that the same has been set aside by the Appellate Authority as per Exhibit R5(b) order. In so far as 1.42 acres of land belonging to the second petitioner is concerned, counsel points out that the purchase order in respect of that land also has been set aside by Exhibit R5(c) order of the Appellate Authority. It is stated that possession certificates that were issued in the past, were based on only the purchase certificates and now that the purchase certificates have been set aside, petitioners cannot have claim title over the properties and in any case possession certificate enabling them to obtain mining permit W.P.(C) No. 7149 / 2009 4 cannot be issued at this juncture, when the matter is now pending before the Land Tribunal. 6. Counsel for the petitioners pointed out that Exhibits R5 (b) and R5(c) orders were issued on technical grounds and that as in the past, he is entitled to be issued possession certificate. 7. I have considered the submission made by both sides. As already noticed, objection raised by respondents 4 to 6 is mainly that basic document of title, namely, purchase certificate issued having been set aside by the Appellate Authority by Exhibits R5(b) and R5(e) orders, the petitioners should not be permitted to mine granite from the property in question. I find substance in the contention. Evidently, basic contention raised is regarding the purchase certificates and if the purchase certificates are not remaining valid now, this Court will not be justified in directing that the second respondent should consider the request of the petitioner for issuance of possession certificate ignoring Exhibits R5(b) and R5(c). Therefore, this Court will not be justified in interfering with Exhibit P14 at this stage. 8. Be that as it may, it is clarified that depending upon W.P.(C) No. 7149 / 2009 5 the order in the proceedings now pending before the Land Tribunal, Malappuram, if the order is in their favour, it will be open to the petitioners to move the second respondent relying on the injunction order that passed by the Civil Court and seek fresh orders on Exhibit P13, application made by them for possession certificate. Writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm