Allowed

Madathara Granites (P) Ltd. v. District Collector

Kerala HC8 Aug 2022WP(C)/14936/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Court directed the Village Officer to issue a Revenue Certificate to the petitioner. The Court held that a stop memo against an adjacent land's quarrying activity is not relevant and cannot preempt processing an application for exempted land, citing a Division Bench judgment.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be issued Revenue Certificate within one month if eligible; rejection letter (Ext.P3) set aside.

Madathara Granites (P) Ltd. Vs District Collector — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 14936 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

MADATHARA GRANITES (P) LTD 3/228 D, NEELIYARA, VELLEPARAMBU ROAD, MADAVANA, PANANGAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682506 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI.ARUNVARGUESE

¶7

BY ADVS. ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL S.SREEDEV RONY JOSE LEO LUKOSE CIMIL CHERIAN KOTTALIL SUZANNE KURIAN

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION ROAD, KOLLAM, PIN - 691013

¶10

2 VILLAGE OFFICER VILLAGE OFFICE, CHITHARA, KOLLAM, PIN – 691559

¶11

SRI.SYAMANTHAK B S, GP

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C) NO. 14936 OF 2022

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Dated this the 8^th day of August, 2022

¶17

The petitioner submitted an application for obtaining Revenue Certificate. The 2^nd respondent-Village Officer rejected the application as per Ext.P3 citing Ext.P4 Stop Memo issued by the District Collector in respect of the property of an adjacent land owner.

¶18

The petitioner would state that Ext.P4 Stop Memo is not relevant as far as the petitioner is concerned, since the

¶19

Stop Memo was issued against quarrying activity in an assigned land. The petitioner is not undertaking any quarrying activity. The petitioner has submitted an application for Possession Certificate. The respondents are bound to

¶20

issue the Possession Certificate to the petitioner.

¶21

Government Pleader entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. The Government Pleader

¶22

WP(C) NO. 14936 OF 2022

¶23

¶24

controverted all material allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition. The Government Pleader submitted that since the land in question is assigned to the petitioner as per Arable Forest Land Assignment Rules, 1970, there cannot be any quarrying activity in the land and consequently a Possession Certificate cannot be issued.

¶25

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

¶26

This Court considered an identical issue in the judgment in Village Officer v. Karnataka Fransalian Society [2017 (2) KLT Online 2198] . A Division Bench of this Court in the said judgment held that whether the property is an exempted property or its user is restricted which cannot be changed, would be a matter that would separately come up for consideration as the occasion may arise by its user, by the purchaser or by any other person. Those proceedings cannot

¶27

WP(C) NO. 14936 OF 2022

¶28

¶29

be preempted by any adverse entry in the Possession Certificate. In the light of the afore judgment, the petitioner's application for Revenue Certificate is liable to be processed.

¶30

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent-Village Officer to issue Revenue Certificate sought for by the petitioner as per Ext.P2, within a period of one month, if the petitioner is otherwise eligible for the same. Ext.P3 communication of the Village Officer is set aside.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE

spk

WP(C) NO. 14936 OF 2022

¶35

¶36

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14936/2022

¶37

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 10.02.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT . Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 18.04.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.04.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED 13.03.2019 BEARING NO. L12-54090/17 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT . Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 22.03.2019 IN WP(C) NO. 8913/2019 ON THE FILES OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶38

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL

Madathara Granites (P) Ltd. v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madathara Granites (P) Ltd. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mayakkara Seithalavi Vs Cherukavu Grama Panchayath

Khalid Vs State of Kerala

Ramachandran A.K Vs Kaiparambu Grama Panchayath

Asma N.A Vs Kaiparambu Grama Panchayat

N M R Siraj Vs Corporation of Kochi

Deepa C Thankappan, Vs Maneed Grama Panchayat