The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:
“i. Issue a writ of certiorari or appropriate order or direction quashing Exhibits P4, P5 and P6 and P11.
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding respondents to drop all proceedings against the petitioner for recovery of any amounts in connection with the mining permits issued for mining ordinary sand from petitioner's property in survey No.419/1A of Mulakulam Village, Vaikom Taluk, Kottayam District.
iii. Grant just and proper reliefs in exercise of the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble court under Article 226 of Constitution of India considering the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 03.03.2014, the following order was passed:
“GP is required to get instruction as to the factual particulars. Post after ten days. Safe scheduled shall go on. But, confirmation of sale shall be subject to further orders to be obtained from this court.”
3. The case projected by the petitioner is that, huge WP(c). No.6022 of -2-
liability has been sought to be mulcted on the petitioner as charges necessary for filling up the pits allegedly formed in the property of the petitioner due to quarrying mining of sand.
4. The 3rd respondent has filed a statement dated 30.06.2014 in the following terms:
“2. It is submitted that on 05.06.2014 an inspection was conducted by me along with the Village Officer, Mulakulam in the disputed property. On inspection it is convinced that there is no area left un- reclaimed in Survey No.419/1A. A copy of the survey sketch prepared by the Taluk Surveyor, Vaikom on 13.06.2014 to prove the above fact is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R3(a). A true copy of the report of the Village Officer dated 16.06.2014 regarding the above fact is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R3(b).
3. It is submitted that since disputed area where the mining activities were being done, was fully reclaimed, this respondent has no objection to withdraw the Revenue Recovery Proceedings initiated against the petitioner.”
5. The learned Government Pleader points out with reference to the contents of the statement and Annexures produced that, the physical verification of the property revealed that no area is lying unfilled as on date and that the property stands fully reclaimed, by virtue of which, the respondent has no WP(c). No.6022 of -3-
objection to withdraw the revenue recovery proceedings.
6. Incidentally, it is also brought to the notice of this Court from the part of the petitioner that, another notice was issued for causing the property to be sold, a copy of which was produced as Ext.P13 along with I.A. No. 8917 of 2014. But the said notice is dated 30.05.2014 ie; prior to the date of the statement filed by the 3rd respondent before this Court on 30.06.2014.
7. In view of the contents of the statement and the submission made by the learned Government Pleader, that all the revenue recovery proceedings will be withdrawn, this Court does not find any necessity to pass further orders in this regard.
8. The contents of the statement and submission made are recorded and the matter is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
Pn