“4. It is humbly submitted that the contentions raised by the petitioner in paragraph 6 of the writ petition is devoid of merits. When the notices were issued to the petitioner, his main contention was regarding the non-consideration of the extraction done by his predecessors in the averred area. The then Senior Geologist examined the matter in detail and found that there are previous extraction in the averred area and as per the office records available at the District office, a quantity of 880M3 was permitted to extract from the averred area previously (289/2-740M3, 289/4-100M3, 289/6-40M3). Hence a deduction of 880M3 was made to the previously estimated 10,656M3 and hence a revised demand for 9776M3 of granite (building stone) was made as Rs.17,59,680/- (Royalty – 5,86,560/-, price – 11,73,120/-) and the same was issued to the petitioner vide notice No.DOI/178/M/2013 Dated 5.12.2016. It is evident from the demand notice (Exhibit P14) that the assessment of the extent of illicit extraction was done only for Sy. No.289/2, 289/4, 289/6 and 289/7 of the Karikkode village.
