State Of Kerala v. Mohammedali Haji

Abdul Gafoor, J.:— This revision petition, filed by the State of Kerala alleging that exemption given to the returnee, for the area claimed by him as quarly, by the Taluk land Board, Ernad is illegal, has been referred for consideration by a Division Bench, doubting the decision in C.R.P No. 1245/1975.

2. The Land Board, considering the objection filed by the returnee and accepting the report of the Authorised Officer, exempted 1 acre of land in R.S No. 367 as granite quarry and another 1 acre in R.S No. 537 as laterite quarry.

3. According to the State, this will not come within the commercial site defined in section 2(5) of Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) and is therefore not liable to be exempted under section S. (1)(q) of the Act.

4. In C.R.P 1245/1975, a learned Judge of this court took the view that even though “in order to remove the product from the land (quarry) there is some element of commerce or trade taking Taluk Land Board went wrong in giving exemption. It was further submitted that the decision in C.R.P No. 1245/1975 does not require reconsideration.

5. As regards whether the land in question is used as quarry, there cannot be any quarrel, because the Authorised Officer during his inspection has found it to be so The petitioner was unable to persuade us to disagree with the report.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the mining operations, which include quarrying, is a subject matter for legislation by the Union and therefore the Land Reforms Act, shall not cover the land used as quarry or mine, being a legislation by the State. This contention is not sustainable. A Full Bench of this court in Selvi Ammal v. Joseph Gomes (1976 K.L.T 868) has held that “it is impossible to read the Act on its terms as as applicable only to agricultural land”. The Act covers all the types of land. It provides for exemptions wherever necessary like port, factories, plantations etc. coming within the legislative sphere of the Union. Therefore, the contention of the respondent in that regard is to be rejected.

7. But when the land in possession or ownership of the returnee is found to be coming within any of the exemptions provided in section S. 81 if of the Act, in tune with the definition clause, necessarily that shall be exempted while reckoning the ceiling area. If a quarry is a commercial site, as provided in section S. 81(1)(q), in conformity with the definition in section 2(5) of the Act, necessarily, it has to be exempted.

8. Blasting of the rock and its conversion into rubbles or metals or cutting of laterite stones is certainly not an agricultural operation. The products cannot be consumed by the owner. So, whatever that is received by the owner as a result of the operation is for the purpose of trade. Section 2(5), while defining “commercial site” covers the land used for the purpose of any trade, commerce, industry, manufacture or business. Blasting of rock or cutting laterite block into consumable articles will certainly come within tills. The word “manufacture” is derived out of ‘manus’ meaning ‘hand’ and ‘facere’ means make. So, making of goods by hand or by machinery on a large scale is ‘manufacture’. That includes makingof goods into any other form for use. Thus blasing of rock for the purpose of making rubbles or metals or cutting of laterite block into stones is a manufacturing operation. In that case, any land meant for such use is a commercial site, as defined in section 2(5), entitling exemption as provided in section S. 81(1)(q) of the Act.

9. The word ‘commercial’ also means produced for mass consumption and with profit as a primary aim. Land used as quarry produces rubbles or laterite stones certainly for mass consumption with profit as a primary aim. Therefore, it is acommercial activity and the site used for quarrying is a commercial site entitling the returnee for exemption under section 81(1)(q) of the Act while computing the ceiling area.

10. The learned single judge while deciding C.R.P 1245/1975, a re-thinking of which was suggested by the learned single judge who referred the matter, did not go into these aspects while holding that in order to remove the product from the land used as quarry there is some element of commerce or trade taking place in the land and that such activity does not render it a commercial site. When it is said that there is element of commerce in blasting operations and in coverting of rock into consumable articles it is necessary to go further into the issue to find out any element other than the commerce or manufacture is involved in it Our view is that there is nothing else or at any rate, that the principal and foremost element involved is the manufacturing process for the purpose for the purpose of commerce or trade. Principal purpose is the criteria to find out whether it fits in the definition clause in section 2(5). In that event, definition clause in section 2(5) and the exemption clause in section 81(1)(q) will necessarily be attracted to the land where quarrying is carried on. In this view, we cannot agree with the proposition laid down by the learned judge in C.R.P 1245/1975. Even in that case, it had been found that commercial activity is involved in quarrying operations.

11. When quarrying is a commercial operation involving a process of manufacture, while converting block rocks or laterite into consumable articles like rubble or metals or stones, a quarry comes within the exemption provisions of commercial site provided in section 8(1)(q) in tune with the definition in section 2(5) of the Act. Quarry is thus a commercial site eligible for such exemption.

12. The Taluk Land Board was, therefore, perfectly justified in granting exemption of the Land used as quarry and the returnee is entitled to that benefit. Confirming the order of the Taluk land Board, we dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.