HARI TRADERS REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SUBBARAJ NAGAR, BODINAICKANUR, THENI DISTRICT AND BASKAR LIME INDUSTRIES REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SUBBARAJ NAGAR, BODINAICKANUR, THENI DISTRICT Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF MINES, NEW DELHI; STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, FORT ST GEORGE, MADRAS; THENPANDI MINERALS, MADURAI DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both the petitioners are questioning the very same order of the first respondent dated 24-9-2001, they are being disposed of by the following common order. Aggrieved by the order of the first respondent dated 24-9-2001, setting aside the mining lease granted in their favour by the State Government, and remanding the case to the State Government to consider the mining lease application of the third respondent herein-M/s. Thenpandi Minerals over the applied area of 8.89.5 Hectares on merits and in accordance with law, the petitioners have filed the above writ petitions to quash the same on various grounds.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is briefly stated hereunder:- The petitioners in both the writ petitions are family partnership firms. Both the partnership firms are carrying on business of quarrying and marketing limestone and lime for the past ten years. Both the firms are owning several patta lands and also owning limestone based factories at Bodinaickanur, Kappalur, Theni and Virudunagar. To cater the raw material requirements of their factories, the petitioners have applied and got limesotone quarry leases in the districts of Dindigul, Tuticorin and Tirunelveli. They are owning patta lands at Myladumparai village, Andipatti Taluk, Theni District. They obtained B-Memo pattas in respect of the adjacent revenue lands of the said patta lands and have grown cashew nut trees in the said adjoining poramboke lands and the said lands are in the possession of the petitioners for the past 10 years. By application dated 4-12-95, the petitioner in W.P.No.19026/2001 has applied to the second respondent for limestone quarry lease in respect of Survey Nos. 567/6 (0-35-0 hectares); 567/7 (1-05-0 hectares); 567/9 (0-04-5 hectares); 567/10 (0-06-0 hectares); 567/12 (0-02-0 hectares); 567/13 ((0-06-0); 567/14 (0-07-0 hectares); 567/15 (1-58-0); 567/16 (0-02-0 hectares); 567/17 (0-03-0 hectares) and 567/18 (0-98-0 hectares)=total extent 4-26-5 hectares. The petitioner in W.P.No.19027/2001 by application dated 24-11-95, has applied to the 2nd respondent for limestone quarry lease in respect of S.Nos. 570/2 (0-75-5 hectares); 570/5 (0-83-5 hectares); 570/6 (0-73-0 hectares); 570/7 (2-49-5 hectares) and 570/3 (1-19-0 hectares)=total area 6-00-5 hectares. The above survey numbers which are including the said B-Memo patta lands are situated in Myladumparai village, Andipatti taluk, Theni District. After getting report of the District Collector and after satisfying with the credentials and the bona fide requirements of the raw material to the petitioners' factories, the second respondent by G.O.3 (D) No.75, Industries (MMD.2) Department dated 31-7-2000 has granted lease to the petitioner in W.P.No.19026/2001 to quarry limestone in respect of 1-58-0 hectares in S.No. 567/15 and 0-98-0 hectares in S.No. 567/18=total extent 2-56-0 hectares; and to the petitioner in W.P.No.19027/2001 in respect of 0-75-5 hectares in S.No. 570/2 and 2-49-5 hectares in S.No. 570/7=total extent 3-25-0 hectares. Pursuant to the said grant, the second respondent executed a lease agreement on 23-8-2000 in respect of the said area in favour of the respective petitioner and duly registered. The said lease is for the period 20 years from 23-8-2000 to 22-8-2020. After the said execution of the lease deed, the respective petitioner has taken possession of the said quarry and commenced quarry operations. It seems that the third respondent has also applied for limestone quarry lease in respect of certain survey numbers for a total area of 8-89-5 hectares. The 2nd respondent by the same G.O., dated 31-7-2000 has directed the 3rd respondent to apply afresh after forming an approach road to the area for which mining lease is sought for. The third respondent has filed a revision application before the first respondent against the said G.O., dated 31-7-2000. By the impugned order dated 24-9-2001, the first respondent has allowed the said revision application filed by the third respondent and set aside the grant made in favour of the petitioners. Hence the above writ petitions.

(3.) The third respondent namely M/s Thenpandi Minerals,filed a separate but identical counter affidavit in both the writ petitions. It is stated that they applied for grant of mining lease for limestone quarrying for a period of 20 years on 6-11-95 in respect of various survey numbers. Even though the 3rd respondent has made application for several survey numbers, W.P.No.19026/2001 relates to only the S.Nos. 567/15, 567/18 and 569/3; and W.P.Nos. 19027/2001 relates to only Survey Nos. 570/2, 570/7 and 569/3. The third respondent has made an application for the grant of lease in respect of Survey Nos. 567/6 and 567/7 on 6-11-95. The petitioner in W.P.No.19027/2001 has also made an application in respect of same survey number on 24-11-95, except Survey No. 569/3. Based on the repost of the Collector, the Government of Tamil Nadu has passed an order on 31-7-2000, granting mining lease in favour of the writ petitioners subject to the condition that they should form an approach road at their own cost before commencing the mining activities. However, the Government rejected the request of the third respondent and advised them to apply afresh after forming an approach road to the area for which mining lease is sought for. The third respondent has got a preferential right than the writ petitioner, since they (3rd respondent) made an application on 6-11-95, whereas the writ petitioner in WPs.19026/2001 and 19027/2001 made an application only on 4-12-95 and 24-11-95 respectively. The 3rd respondent have adequate knowledge and experience in mining activities and their financial position is sound. Inasmuch as the petitioners are only encroachers and their occupation is not lawful, they cannot claim any preference and their request is liable to be rejected. After considering all those aspects, the first respondent has rightly set aside the grant made in favour of the petitioners and remitted the matter to the State Government for fresh disposal.