S S ENTERPRISES Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERODE DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in W.P.No.15949 of 2010 seeks a writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 11.7.2010 passed by the respondent herein cancelling the quarrying licence granted on 15.6.1998 with effect from 22.05.2003, on the ground that the petitioner had violated the terms of the lease agreement; consequently the respondent imposed penalty on the petitioner as well as on the sub-lessee. THE sub-lessee, in turn, has challenged in so far as the order directing to pay 50% of the penalty amount in W.P.No.18193 of 2010.

(2.) THE facts in the writ petitions are as follows:

(3.) DURING the pendency of these writ petitions, one Deepa, Power Agent of K.R.Rajakrishnan, filed a miscellaneous petition in M.P.No.2 of 2010 in W.P.No.15949 of 2010 to implead herself in the writ petition. It is stated by the petitioner in the said Miscellaneous Petition that she is the owner of the land in R.S.No.1075/1A and 1075/1B measuring an extent of 0.41.10 Hectares in Burgur Village, Bhavani Taluk, Erode District, she having purchased the said land from one E.M.Subramanian and another by way of Registered sale deed dated 13.04.2009. It is further stated that the land originally belonged to one Mathey Gowder. The said E.M.Subramanian, along with his daughter S.Maheshwari, sold the said land to the petitioner in this Miscellaneous Petition under registered sale deed dated 13.4.2009. Against the petitioner's vendor E.M.Subramanian, the petitioner in W.P.No.15949 of 2010 filed the suit in O.S.No.239 of 2005 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Bhavani for declaration of title and permanent injunction and the same is now pending and temporary injunction sought for in I.A.No.792 of 2005 in O.S.No.239 of 2005 was dismissed by order dated 4.8.2005. As against the same, the writ petitioner came before this Court by way of C.R.P.No.2823 of 2007 and this Court, by order dated 28.8.2008, rejected the Civil Revision Petition and directed the Court below to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.239 of 2005 on merits and in accordance with law. DURING the pendency of the same, the petitioner in W.P.No.15949 of 2010 filed another suit in O.S.No.70 of 2009 on the file of the District and Sessions Court of Erode, for declaration of title and permanent injunction against six others with reference to the same land. The petitioner in M.P.No.2 of 2010 in W.P.No.15949 of 2010 is the purchaser of a portion of the land from one of the co-owners who happens to be one of the plaintiffs therein. The petitioner in W.P.No.15949 of 2010, thereafter, withdrew the suit in O.S.No.239 of 2005. The subsequent suit is hit by Section 11, C.P.C. The petitioner in M.P.No.2 of 2010 states that the petitioner in W.P.No.15949 of 2010 is not the absolute owner of the land in question and that the petitioner in W.P.No.15949 of 2010 cannot claim exclusive ownership of the land bearing Survey No.1075 in Bargur Village and without the consent of the necessary parties, the writ petitioner obtained lease for 10 years and they continued the quarry operation in the light of the orders of this Court made in W.P.No.23119 of 2008 dated 29.4.2008. It is stated that the petitioner in the said miscellaneous petition has also made a petition on 27.5.2009 to the District Collector, Erode about the irregularities committed by the petitioner in W.P.No.15949 of 2010 and only on his complaint, an enquiry was conducted and orders were passed cancelling the lease. In support of the said order, the present Miscellaneous Petition in M.P.No.2 of 2010 has been filed seeking to implead himself in the writ petition as a necessary party. As far as the present petition filed for impleading the said petitioner in the writ petition is concerned, I do not find any merit in the contention that as a purchaser of a portion of the lands from one of the alleged co-owners, in respect of which, a suit is pending and as the complainant, he is entitled to defend the order of the Collector. As far as the present case is concerned, the cancellation of lease granted to the petitioner rests on the merits of the claim of the petitioners to be decided in the light of the provisions of the Act and as per the agreement entered into between the petitioners and the respondent herein and the jurisdiction of the respondent to deal with a lease which is no longer in existence. In a dispute concerning violation of the terms of the licence granted, an alleged subsequent purchaser cannot have any say either supporting the order of the respondent or that of the petitioner merely on the score that he was the complainant and he has interest in the property concerned. The rights of this petitioner in the M.P. is a matter which has to be settled only in the civil proceedings. The correctness or otherwise of the order impugned herein has to be seen not from the angle of this petitioner in the M.P. but with reference to the jurisdiction of the authority concerned under the Rules.