Dismissed

G.Rajesh v. District Collector

Kerala HC11 Oct 2021WP(C)/27025/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL, the petitioner sought mandamus directing government officials to recover encroached government land and stop illegal quarrying by M/s Global Granites. The High Court, relying on a prior judgment (W.P.(C) No. 29702/2018) dismissing the identical cause of action, held that no new public interest was demonstrated and existing administrative actions were legally sustainable.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as it does not survive in light of the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 29702/2018.

G.Rajesh Vs District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

MONDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 19TH ASWINA, 1943

¶7

WP(C) NO. 27025 OF 2017

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

G.RAJESH, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN, PADINJARE VEEDU, KARIMBANCHIRA, KUMBALAKKODE POST, PAZHAYANNUR, THRISSUR.

¶10

BY ADV SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, PALAKKAD, PIN-678 001.

¶13

2 THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD-678 541.

¶14

3 VILLAGE OFFICER, PUDUKKODE VILLAGE, PALAKKAD, PIN-678 687.

¶15

4 PUDUKKODE GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUDUKKODE, PALAKKAD, PIN-678 687.

¶16

5 GEOLOGIST

¶17

MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD, PIN-678 001.

¶18

6 MS.GLOBAL GRANITES REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR K.MUNEER, ULIKUTHAMPADAM, PUDUKKODE, PALAKKAD, PIN-678 687.

¶19

7 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

¶20

BY ADVS.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.R.RANJITH

¶21

SRI.K.M.ANEESH STATE ATTORNEY SRI.ADARSH KUMAR SRI.K.SANTHOSH KUMAR (KALIYANAM) SRI.BIJU VARGHESE ABRAHAM SRI.DILEEP CHANDRAN

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

WP(C) NO. 27025 OF 2017

¶24

:: 2 ::

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Dated this the 11^th day of October 2021

¶27

S.MANIKUMAR, C.J.

¶28

Alleging inaction on the part of the respondents 1 to 5 (District Collector, Palakkad; Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Alathur, Palakkad; Village Officer, Pudukkode Village, Palakkad; Pudukkode Grama Panchayat, Pudukkode, Palakkad; Geologist, Mining and Geology Department, Palakkad), in not taking any action to recover the land from 6^th respondent/M/S Global Granites, who, according to the petitioner, has illegally encroached into the land belonging to the Government, and also, in not stopping quarrying and crusher activities, in violation of the conditions of assignment and the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, instant public interest litigation has been filed.

¶29

Petitioner is stated to be a public spirited citizen and a resident of Karimbanchira desom, within Pudukkode Grama Panchayat, where the quarry and metal crusher unit conducted by the 6^th respondent/M/S Global Granites is situated. According to the petitioner, the conduct of quarry and metal crusher unit, by the 6^th respondent/M/S Global Granites, is a threat to the life and property of about 100 families, residing within the 200-300 metres radius from the quarry. The quarry, as well as metal crusher unit, is conducted in violation

¶30

WP(C) NO. 27025 OF 2017

¶31

:: 3 ::

¶32

of all ecological parameters.

¶33

Petitioner has further submitted that one Mr.C.V.Raghu had approached the National Green Tribunal, Chennai Bench, challenging the illegal conduct of quarry, which resulted, in an order from the National Green Tribunal, directing stoppage of conduct of quarry, by the aforesaid Global granites, until obtaining environment clearance, as well as explosives permit and consent from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. According to the petitioner, even now the metal crusher unit, which is established as a large scale unit is functioning. The 6^th respondent is even now conducting metal crusher unit ostensibly using granite stones transported from outside. However, it is understood that granite stones are being quarried from the aforesaid quarry by using chemicals, without causing explosion.

¶34

Being aggrieved, this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶35

i) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 5, to initiate steps to recover the Government land having an extent of 5.47 acres, illegally occupied by the 6^th respondent, and to put the same for uses stipulated in the Kerala Land Reforms Act.

¶36

ii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 5 to initiate steps to recover.

¶37

Material on record discloses that a statement has been filed on behalf

¶38

of respondent No.2/the Tahsildar, Taluk Office on 25^th September 2017, wherein it is stated that all the respondents had taken appropriate action

¶39

WP(C) NO. 27025 OF 2017

¶40

:: 4 ::

¶41

against respondent No.6, with all the seriousness required, and complying with the statutory provisions.

¶42

Relevant portions of the said statement read thus:

¶43

“2 It is submitted that the Land Board, Alathur in its order No.CC-53/1973 dated 27.06.1980, declared an extent of 8.67 Acres of land in Old Survey No.131E/1A comprised in Kannanoor Pattola amsom and desam in Puthucode Village, Palakkad District as excess land under ceiling provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and directed to take over possession from the land owner Smt. Sarojini Amma, and actual possession was taken over.

¶44

On verification of the surrendered land taken possession from Smt. Sarojini Amma, the northern part of the land having an extent of 5.47 Acres was identified as rockey, which was not fit for cultivation and assignment to the landless,and the same was reserved for public purpose. The remaining land on the southern part having an extent of 3.20 Acres were assigned to four eligible persons named (1) Muhammed Haneefa (80 Cents in Old Sy. No.131 E/1A pt) (2) Ayisumma (80Cents in Old Sy.No.131 E/1A pt) (3) Kocha, W/o. Krishnan (80 Cents in Old Sy. No.131 E/1A pt) and (4) Thankam, W/o. Achuthan (80 Cents in Old Sy. No.131 E/1A pt) In Puthucode Village as per Rule 31 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules, 1970 and deed of assignment in Form XIX [Rule 31(2) of the KLR (Ceiling) Rules] was issued to them. But, no patta Contemplated under Rule 31(9) of the KLR (Ceiling) Rules was issued to the above named assignees.

¶45

Exhibit P3 deed of assignment has not correctly described how the assignors named Muhammed Haneefa, his wife Ayisumma and Abdul Rahiman obtained the entire extent of property, they assigned in favour of respondent No.6.

¶46

The land remaining after granting assignment in favour of four persons stated in paragraph 3 was entrusted with the Village Officer, Puthucode and remains as Government land.

¶47

WP(C) NO. 27025 OF 2017

¶48

:: 5 ::

¶49

Respondent No.6 is claiming assignment of 3.100 Acres as per Exhibit P3. Over the remaining extent of Government land or 5.47 Acres, respondent No.6 has absolutely no right or possession. He illegally encroached over a portion of 5.47 Acres of Government land, which is subsequently identified by this respondent as 0.3583 Hectares (88.5 Cents) in old Sy. No.131 E/1A pt (New Sy. No. 240 of Puthucode Village).

¶50

It is submitted that much prior to Exhibit P4 P4 representation produced by the petitioner, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 initiated proceedings against respondent No.6 against illegal illegal encroachment and conduct of mining activities in the Government against land.

¶51

Immediately on getting information, the Village Officer on inspection reported the encroachment over the Government land to the Tahsildar, Alathur as per Rule 4, Form A of the Kerala Land Conservancy Rules, 1958. True copy of the Form A report dated 17.01.2013 along with the mahazar is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R2(a).

¶52

With respect to the illegal quarrying activities found in the Government property, Form AA report was also submitted to the Tahsildar, Alathur. True copy of Form AA report dated 17.01.2013 under the Land Conservancy Rules, 1958 submitted by the Village Officer to this respondent is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R2(b).

¶53

The Village Officer issued a stop memo to the respondent No.6 to stop all illegal activities including quarrying work in the property. True copy of the stop memo dated 13.02.2013 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R2(c).

¶54

Respondent No.6 challenged Annexure R2(c) stop memo before this Hon'ble Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 7155/2013. Village Officer filed counter affidavit in the said Writ Petition justifying his action. The Writ Petition is still pending.

¶55

Pursuant to Annexures R2(a) and (b), this respondent issued notice under Section 12 of the Land Conservancy Act in Form B to respondent No.6 to appear and show cause. True copy of

¶56

WP(C) NO. 27025 OF 2017

¶57

:: 6 ::

¶58

Form B notice issued to respondent No.6 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R2(d).

¶59

Pursuant to Annexure R2(d) notice, respondent No.6 appeared and submitted a statement. True copy of the statement submitted by respondent No.6 dated 11.09.2014 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R2(e)

¶60

Pursuant to the hearing, this respondent directed the Taluk Surveyor to conduct a survey of the property and separately demarcate the encroachment and the area from which illegal quarrying was conducted by respondent No.6. The Taluk Surveyor conducted survey and demarcated the area of 88.5 Cents in Re-Sy. No. 240 as the illegally conducted quarrying area. True copy of the Survey Sketch submitted by the Taluk Surveyor, Alathur is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R2(f).

¶61

On the basis of the identified encroached area in the survey sketch, this respondent requested the District Geologist on 25.07.2017 to assess the loss caused to the Government due to the illegal quarrying activities conducted in 88.5 Cents of property. The District Geologist after field inspection submitted a report that the owner of M/s. Global Granites has encroached over Government land Comprised in Block 32, Re-Sy. No. 240 of Puthucode Village and illicitly extracted Granite Building Stone from an area of 88.5 Cents (0.3583 Hectares) of land. The Geologist also reported that about 39,280 MT of Granite Building Stone was illicitly extracted from the Government land. He assessed the loss caused to the Government at Rs.28,28,160/- towards royalty and price, and Rs.25,000/towards fine as per Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015. In addition to the above amount, Rs.19,64,000/- has to be remitted to the Government towards seigniorage. True copy of the report submitted the Geologist, Palakkad District to the Tahsildar, Alathur dated by 21.08.2017 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R2 (g).

¶62

On the basis of the report submitted by the Geologist, this respondent passed an order for realization of a total amount of Rs.48,17,160/- on different counts. True copy of the order dated

¶63

WP(C) NO. 27025 OF 2017

¶64

:: 7 ::

¶65

13.09.2017 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R2(h)

¶66

Form C notice along with Annexure R2(h) order was issued to respondent No.6. True copy of the Form C notice issued under Rule 11 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Rules is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R2(i).

¶67

Respondent No.6 challenged Annexures R2(h) and (I) orders before this Hon'ble Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 30364/2017. This Hon'ble Court disposed of the Writ Petition advising respondent No.6 to file statutory appeal challenging Annexure R2(h) order.

¶68

It is submitted that all the respondents had taken appropriate action against respondent No.6 with all the seriousness required and complying statutory provisions. Necessary follow-up action will be taken up in the matter depending on the order which may be passed by this Hon'ble Court in the above Writ Petition.”

¶69

On this day, when the matter came up for hearing, attention of this court was invited to the decision of this Court in W.P.(C)No.29702/2018 dated 24^th September 2018, filed by the writ petitioner Mr.G.Rajesh and another Mr.Raghu, wherein they have alleged that, on account of the failure on the part of the State and its officials, respondents 1 to 6 therein, to recover the amounts legally due from the 7^th respondent/viz. M/S. Global Granites, represented by its Managing Director K.Muneer, for the alleged illegal quarrying carried out by the 7^th respondent, in an extent of 5.47 acres of Government poramboke land in old survey No. 131E/1A/pt (new survey No. 240) of Puthucode Village, substantial loss was caused to the State and also orders passed.

¶70

WP(C) NO. 27025 OF 2017

¶71

:: 8 ::

¶72

Relevant portions of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.29702/2018 dated 24^th

¶73

September 2018 read thus:

¶74

“26. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not made out any public interest so as to interfere with the orders passed by the statutory authorities, in accordance with law. We are also of the opinion that petitioner has not produced any evidence or documents, so as to justify the allegations made in the writ petition that the appellate authority, as well as the Tahsildar, were incorrect in passing the impugned orders.

¶75

It is trite and well settled in law that a writ court adjudicating the issues in a summary manner, is not expected to interfere with any factual findings, after calling for records from the statutory authorities. Which thus means the petitioners ought to have produced requisite documents and records, so as to convince this Court that there are factual errors or illegality in the findings rendered by the statutory authority, so as to secure any reliefs exercising the power of discretion conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, when the statutory authority has taken a decision rendering reasons, it has got a presumption valid under law by virtue of section 114 (e ) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore the burden of rebutting the presumption, no doubt, is upon the petitioners, and the petitioners ought to have rebutted the presumption available in law, so as to convince this Court that interference is required to the findings rendered by the statutory authorities, at least by establishing a prima facie case, which the petitioners have failed to do.

¶76

Upshot of the above discussion is that writ petition fails and accordingly, it is dismissed.”

¶77

Mr.K.R.Ranjith, learned Government Pleader, submitted that the judgment in W.P.(C)No.29702/2018 dated 24^th September 2018 squarely applies to the facts on hand also. We are also in agreement with the said judgment. He further submitted that actual possession of the land in question has been

¶78

WP(C) NO. 27025 OF 2017

¶79

:: 9 ::

¶80

acquired by the Government.

¶81

In the light of the above, reliefs sought for in this writ petition do not

¶82

survive. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.

¶83

SD/S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE

¶84

SD/SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶85

jes

¶86

WP(C) NO. 27025 OF 2017

¶87

:: 10 ::

¶88

APPENDIX

¶89

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶90

EXHIBIT P1 :	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL DATED 21-7- 2016.
EXHIBIT P2 :	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22-9-2011 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT P3 :	TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED NO.1732/2005 DATED 22-5-2005 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT P4 :	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 5-7-2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5.

¶91

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES

¶92

ANNEXURE R2(a)	TRUE COPY OF THE FORM A REPORT DATED 17.1.2013 ALONG WITH THE MAHAZAR ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
ANNEXURE R2(b)	TRUE COPY OF FORM AA REPORT DATED 17.1.2013 UNDER THE LAND CONSERVANCY RULES, 1958 SUBMITTED BY TEH VILLAGE OFFICER TO THIS RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
ANNEXURE R2(c)	TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED 13.2.2013 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION
ANNEXURE R2(d)	TRUE COPY OF FORM B NOTICE ISSUED TO RESPONDENT NO.6 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION
ANNEXURE R2(e)	TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT NO.6 DATED 11.9.2014 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
ANNEXURE R2(f)	TRUE COPY OF THE SURVEY SKETCH SUBMITTED BY THE TALUK SURVEYOR, ALATHUR.
ANNEXURE R2(g)	TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE GEOLOGIST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT TO THE TAHSILDAR, ALATHUR DATED 21.8.2017 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
ANNEXURE R2(h)	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.9.2017 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
ANNEXURE R2(i)	TRUE COPY OF THE FORM C NOTICE ISSUED UNDER RULE 11 OF THE KERALA

¶93

WP(C) NO. 27025 OF 2017

¶94

:: 11 ::

¶95

	LAND CONSERVANCY RULES ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT R6(a)	TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRY PERMITS ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENT HEREIN FROM TIME TO TIME.
EXHIBIT R6(b)	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 15- 7-2016 ALONG WITH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT R6(c)	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 26-7-2016.
EXHIBIT R6(d)	TRUE COPY OF THE CONCOMITANT APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF QUARRY PERMIT FOR THE YEAR 2016.
EXHIBIT R6(e)	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 23.2.2013.
EXHIBIT R6(g)	TRUE COPY OF THE SURVEY SKETCHES PREPARED BY THE AUTHORITIES AND ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R6(g)	TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1733/2005 DATED 20.4.2005 ALONG WITH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT R6(h)	TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3558/2006 DATED 26-9-2006 ALONG WITH TRANSLATION
EXHIBIT R6(i)	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.9.2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT.

¶96

// TRUE COPY//

¶97

P.S. TO JUDGE

G.Rajesh v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Rajesh v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj M.N Vs Union of India

Bijumon Vs State of Kerala

Visakh v Soman Vs Staff Selection Commision

N.V. Sanjeev Vs G.Jayadev

Centre for Consumer Education Vs the Chairman & Managing Director, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Rajkishor C Vs State of Kerala