Revenue certificate can be issued for land exempted under Kerala Land Reforms Act: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on Thursday held that a revenue certificate cannot be denied on the ground that the land in respect of which it is sought has been exempted from land ceiling provisions under the Kerala Land Reforms Act,1967 (KLR Act). [M/S. Wayanad Granites v the District Collector & Ors.]..The Court added that such a certificate also cannot be denied on the ground that no permission has been obtained to convert the land (thereby changing its exempted status) under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967..Justice Gopinath P made the observation while considering a petition challenging a Tahsildhar’s decision to reject an application by a granite quarrying company (petitioner) for revenue certificates in respect of certain land in Wayanad, which was classified as a plantation..The Tahsildhar had refused to grant the revenue certificate on the ground that the land in respect of which the certificates were sought, was exempt from land ceiling proceedings under Section 81(e) of the KLR Act.Notably, Section 81(e) exempts plantations from the purview of land ceiling provisions under the KLR Act..The petitioner contended that the Tahsildhar's refusal to issue the revenue certificates was illegal and unsustainable in law as there is no bar under the KLR Act to utilize land exempted under Section 81 for any other purpose. The petitioner's counsel further contended that the only consequence of converting the land would be that the land so converted would also be calculated for the purposes of determining the land ceiling limit..The Government Pleader, however, maintained that the petitioner was not entitled to a revenue certificate.He informed the Court that the petitioner was a lessee and the land was leased out to him to operate a granite quarry.The government counsel added that if the revenue certificate is issued, the plantation land would lose its exempted status under Section 81 (e) of the KLR Act. He asserted that the land in question, which was a coffee plantation, could not be used for any other activity without an order for conversion under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967.As per a recent 2012 amendment of the KLR Act, exempted land can be used for non-plantation purposes subject to a maximum of 5% of the total holding, he added..The Tahsildar told the Court that revenue certificates cannot be issued as the purpose for which certificates were sought was to process applications to obtain permission for granite quarrying activities..The High Court, however, ultimately ruled in the petitioner's favour and held that the revenue certificates sought can be issued. The Court acknowledged that the certificates were being sought to secure permits for mining activities. All the same, the Court observed that the question of whether the land in question can be used for quarrying or if such permission should be refused on environmental grounds or because permission required under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, etc. are matters to be decided at the appropriate stage. .The High Court clarified that the issue of the revenue certificates will not mean that the petitioner is entitled to the issue of a mining permit or environmental clearance.“The issuance of these certificates shall not be treated as a no-objection from the revenue department to start quarrying operations over the land in question,” the judgment stated.The revenue certificate issue would also not mean that no permission is required under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 for converting the land for purposes other than coffee cultivation, the Court added. The Court further clarified that it would not mean that the landowners are not liable for action under the provisions of the KLR Act. Having made these aspects clear, the petition was disposed of by the Court with directions to the authorities concerned to issue the revenue certificates within a month. .The granite quarrying company (petitioner) was represented by advocates Enoch David Simon Joel, S Sreedev, Rony Jose, Leo Lukose, Karol Mathews Sebastian Alencherry, and Derick Mathai SajiThe State was represented by Senior Government Pleader Jaffarkhan..[Read Judgment]