Kerala High Court
S.N.Granites vs The District Collector on 17 June, 2015
Author: K. Vinod Chandran
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/30TH KARTHIKA, 1938
WP(C).No. 37019 of 2016 (B)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
1. S.N.GRANITES, MULAYAM VILLAGE,
THRISSUR,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
SRI.C.M. RAJEEVAN, S/O.MANIKUTTY.
2. RAJESH, S/O.SUKUMARAN, KOODATHINGAL,
PALLISSERRY, ARATTUPUZHA VILLAGE,
THRISSUR.
BY ADVS.SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU
SRI.B.PREMNATH (E)
SRI.VINEETH KURIAKOSE
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, THRICHUR 680 002.
2. THE TAHSILDAR,
OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE, THRISSUR - 680 022.
3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
MULAYAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR - 680 002.
4. THE GEOLOGIST,
DISTRICT OFFICE, THRISSUR - 680 020.
5. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RENIL ANTO
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 21-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
mbr/
WP(C).No. 37019 of 2016 (B)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED BEARING NO.1742/2012 OF
OLLUKKARA SRO.
EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF INTENT, DATED 17-06-2015
ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF CONSENT TO OPERATE
ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.
EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF EXPLOSIVE LICENSE ISSUED TO THE 2ND
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF STOP MEMO DATED 02-05-2016 ISSUED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION DATED 06-05-2016 FILED BY
THE 2ND PETITIONER TO EXHIBIT P5.
EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE PERMITS ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT TO SRI BAIJU FOR THE PERIOD 2012 &
2014.
EXHIBIT P8 : TRUE COPY OF LICENSE ISSUED BY THE GRAMA
PANCHAYAT, TO MR. BAIJU.
EXHIBIT P9 : TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF CONSENT TO OPERATE
ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD TO
MR.BAIJU.
EXHIBIT P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLOSIVE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE
EXPLOSIVE DEPARTMENT TO MR.BAIJU.
EXHIBIT P11 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT,
DATED 01-10-2016.
EXHIBIT P12 : TRUE COPY OF FORM OF PATTA ISSUED TO THE
ASSIGNEE VIZ SRI.GANGADHARAN.
EXHIBIT P13 : TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 25-10-2016 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL
-----------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
mbr/
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.37019 of 2016 - B
- - - - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 21st day of November, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is aggrieved with Ext.P11 order of the District Collector. As seen from Ext.P11, proceedings are taken on the basis of the complaints received from the public, with respect to quarry and crusher activities conducted by the petitioner in the subject land. The District Collector by Ext.P11 passed an order, directing the Thahasildar to take appropriate proceedings under Rule 8 (3) of The Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964.
2. The main contention raised by the learned WP(C) No.37019/2016 2 Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the findings of the District Collector in Ext.P11 forecloses the hearing before the Tahsildar. It is contended that the District Collector had directed the Tahsildar to afford an opportunity for hearing and then initiate proceedings to cancel the patta granted to the petitioner; which order is a clear direction to effect cancellation making the hearing an empty formality. The learned Government Pleader based on Rule 21 of The Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960 (for brevity 'the Act') would contend that an appeal would lie to the Land Revenue Commissioner and hence the writ petition cannot be entertained.
3. As of now, the Collector has not decided the WP(C) No.37019/2016 3 issue, going by the directions issued to the Tahsildar, which is only to consider the issue of cancellation of patta. True, the language employed in Ext.P11 is not happily worded, especially since the direction is to afford an opportunity and initiate proceedings to cancel the license. That is not the procedure contemplated when an adjudication is carried on; in this case, under Rule 8(3) of the Rules. The apprehension of the petitioner is also that the arguments would be foreclosed going by the words employed in the order of the District Collector.
4. An appeal would be unnecessary, since essentially the District Collector cannot be said to have entered into any findings on the various allegations raised WP(C) No.37019/2016 4 against the petitioner. The District Collector only directed the consideration of the issue by the Tahsildar under the provisions of the Act and the Rules. In that context, it would suffice to modify Ext.P11, making it a completely open direction to issue notice under Rule 8 (3) of the Rules, invite objections, consider the same and pass orders in accordance with law.
5. The Tahsildar is said to have heard the parties and the learned Government Pleader also submits that though orders are not passed, it has to be passed considering the time frame fixed by the District Collector. In such circumstance, the Tahsildar is as of now restrained from passing any order on the proceedings initiated. The petitioner WP(C) No.37019/2016 5 itself or a representative would appear before the Tahsildar on 29.11.2016 at 11 A.M, on which date, if it is convenient to the Tahsildar or any other date, within two weeks, the Tahsildar shall hear the petitioner and pass orders within two weeks from the date of hearing. The date of hearing fixed by the Tahsildar shall be communicated to the petitioner or representative, when objections are filed and acknowledgment received personally. The petitioner shall also be permitted to file detailed objections before the Tahsildar on 29.11.2016. If the petitioner does not appear on 29.11.2016 or the objections are not filed, the Tahsildar would be entitled to consider the issue as such. It is made clear that the findings, if any, in Ext.P11 are not binding at all on the WP(C) No.37019/2016 6 Tahsildar and the Tahsildar would have to consider the issue independently, in accordance with law. It is also clarified that the petitioner too would not carry on any operation in the subject land when the issue is under consideration.
The writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE jma xxxx //true copy// P.A to Judge