M. RAMASAMY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks for a declaration to declare that he is entitled for proportionate lease amount of Rs. 45,15,273/ - towards the non -operated area of land covered under the lease agreement, measuring 24 -00 -0 hectares out of the total extent of 40 -82 -5 hectares, with interest.

(2.) (i) The petitioner was granted a sand quarry lease by the first respondent by issuing G.O. 3(D) No. 331, Industries (MMC -2) Department dated 22.11.1995 in respect of the land measuring 40 -82 -5 hectares comprised in Survey No. 200 of Kirungakottai Village, Sivagangai District. The lease was for a period of five years commencing from 04.12.1995 to 03.12.2000. The petitioner also executed a lease agreement on 04.12.1995 and it was duly registered. The petitioner also paid the lease amount for the entire extent of land covered under the lease agreement. Even though the order passed by the first respondent in G.O. 3(D) No. 331, Industries (MMC -2) Department dated 22.11.1995 as well as the lease agreement executed by the petitioner on 04.12.1995 indicate the extent of the land covered under the lease as 40 -82 -5 hectares, in the proceedings dated 04.12.1995 of the second respondent, the area of land was reduced to 16 -00 -0 hectares thereby the petitioner was deprived of leasehold land measuring about 24 -00 -0 hectares of land.

(3.) (i) The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would contend that the area of land covered under the lease deed as well as the lease agreement was reduced because of the fact that a portion of the land allotted to the petitioner is situate within the prohibitory distance of water sources, therefore, the petitioner was not permitted to carry on the quarrying operation in those lands. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader, if the petitioner was aggrieved by the reduction in area of land, he ought to have filed a statutory appeal as contemplated under Section 36 -D of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 soon after the execution of the lease deed, but he did not do so. Rather, after completing the period of lease in the portion of the land allotted to him, he filed W.P. No. 20636 of 2000 before this Court and obtained an interim order on 07.02.2000. For non -compliance of the order dated 07.02.2000 in W.P. No. 20636 of 2000, the petitioner also filed Contempt Petition No. 789 of 2000. In other words, the petitioner carried on the quarrying operation in whatever area allotted to him without raising any objection and after expiry of the period of lease, he filed the writ petition and obtained an interim order. The petitioner also did not question the order passed by the second respondent by which the area of quarrying site was reduced.