R.KANDASAMY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the owner of the lands in S. Nos. 169/1, 169/2 and other Survey Numbers in Somayapalayam Village, Coimbatore and some extent of poramboke land is found adjacent to his patta land. The Poramboke land in both the above mentioned Survey Numbers lies in the middle of his patta land and even one portion was surrounded by Boluvambatti Forest and he is in possession of the Poramboke land for the past 35 years. It is further averred that 'B' memo notices have been issued to him for all these years for that land and he has paid the charges for being in possession and cultivating the same. While so, on 19.1.1998, the petitioner has made an application to the 2nd respondent seeking to grant lease of the Poramboke Land to him as he has incurred huge expenditure for developing the same. The 1st respondent issued orders in G.O.Ms. No. 94 dated 22.2.2002 for grant of lease to him in respect of 4.73 acres in S. No. 172/1A and 1.26 acres in S. No. 168 for a period of three years i.e., the lease period commences from 22.2.2002 initially for a period of three years and the same comes to an end only on 22.2.2005 which can be renewed thereafter. The lease amount for a year comes to Rs. 9393/- and the 3rd respondent shall execute the lease deed for the same.

(2.) But, to the shock and surprise of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent by his proceedings dated 9.10.2002 issued orders directing the petitioner to pay the lease amount of Rs. 28,179/- for a period of three years commencing from 1998 to 2000 and further stated that the lease period has expired on 31.12.2000 and also advised him to file a petition for extension of lease period beyond 1.1.2001. Immediately, the petitioner made an application to the 1st respondent on 28.11.2002 stating that lease was granted to him only on 22.2.2002 for a period of 3 years. But the 3rd respondent by his proceedings dated 13.3.2003 issued orders stating that if the lease amount of Rs. 28,129/- for the period commencing from 1.1.1998 to 31.12.2000 is not paid, the lease granted in favour of the petitioner will be cancelled and he will be evicted from the said land. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner is before this Court with this Writ Petition.

(3.) Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has been in possession of the Poramboke land-in-question for more than 35 years and he has also spent Rs. 6 Lakhs to make the land suitable for cultivation. The learned senior counsel would further contend that 'B' memo notices have been issued to him for all these years. The learned senior counsel would also contend that the 1st respondent issued orders in G.O. Ms. No. 94 dated 22.2.2002 granting lease to him in respect of 4.73 acres in S. No. 172/1A and 1.26 acres in S. No. 168 for a period of three years commencing from 22.2.2002 till 22.2.2005. Under such circumstances, the order of the 3rd respondent is liable to be quashed.