Petitioners are partnership firms. They operate a stone crusher unit in the property situated in Survey No.427/24 of Krishnagiri Village, Sulthanbathery Taluk. The petitioners, in fact, purchased this property as per Exts.P3 to P6 in the year 1983. The petitioners obtained all statutory licence to operate stone crusher unit. It appears that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner and found that the stone crusher unit is being operated in violation of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the “Land Reforms Act”). According to the Revenue Officials, the above land was exempted as a plantation land under the Land Reforms Act and illegal activities is being carried out without consent of the Village Authorities. The petitioners have approached this Court challenging the action of the authorities interfering with the operation of stone crusher unit.
2. In this matter, a counter affidavit has been filed by the sixth respondent. It is stated in paragraph-4 of the counter affidavit reads as follows:
“It is respectfully submitted that Section 87 of KLR Act, 1963, explanation-II defines that where after the date notified under Section 83, any class of land specified in Schedule-II has been converted into any class of land specified in that schedule or any land exempted under Section 81 from the provisions of this chapter is converted into any class of land not so exempted and in consequence thereof the total extent of land owned or held by a person exceeds the ceiling area shall be deemed to be land acquired after the said date. The area where the crusher and m- sand unit situated was landlocked by the previous land holders with an extent of 31.7735 Hectors.”
3. It is also stated in paragraph-7 reads as follows:
“The State Government in Order No.G.O.(Rt). 2544/2012/RD., dated 3.5.2012 constituted a District Level Committee for scrutinizing applications seeking exemptions under the provisions of Section 81(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The present land holder had not yet approached the District Level Committee for exemption.”
4. The petitioners have a case that the industrial units are exempted category under the Land Reforms Act and therefore, they are also entitled for exemption under Section 81(3) of the Land Reforms Act.
5. I am of the view that if the violation is on account of locating the industrial units in exempted land, it is for the State to initiate action under the Land Reforms Act to treat it as subsequently acquired land to bring within the fold of ceiling limit. However, without resorting to such procedure the interference with the industrial unit being operated with valid permit is unjustifiable. Therefore, I am not expressing anything on the above matter. However, if the petitioners are also desirous to obtain any exemption in terms of the Government Order dated 3.5.2012 mentioned in the counter affidavit, it is open to the petitioners to approach the District Level Committee for seeking exemption under Section 81(3) of the Land Reforms Act.
With that liberty, this writ petition is disposed by quashing impugned orders. It is either open to the State Authorities to proceed against the property under the Land Reforms Act or the petitioners to seek exemption in terms of the Government Order as above.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ln