ANNALAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE civil revision petition is taken up for final disposal by consent of parties. THE plain-tiffin O. S. No. 109of 1993 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur is the petitioner in the civil revision petition. He has filed I. A. No. 432 of 1993 in the lower court for an interim injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with her rights of quarrying land in S. No. 72 in Arakampattu village and in S. No. 284 in guruvoyal village till the disposal of the suit. THE suit is for a declaration that the respondents/defendants are not entitled to enforce the alleged order of the 1st respondent in Rc. 416 (A)87/c5, dated 15. 11. 1988 as it is void and ultra vires, illegal and unenforce-able and also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any way interfering with S. No. 284 of guruvoyal and S. No. 72 of Arukam-pattu village with the right of the plaintiff to quarry for a further period of three years and thereafter until evicted by due process of law in any manner whatsoever. THE plaintiff states that she is a ceylon Repatriate having settled in India in or about the year 1976 and that she is eking out her livelihood out of casual labour. Under the Tamil Nadu minor Minerals Concession Rules, Rule 10 gives preferential treatment to Ceylon repatriate in giving lease of quarry belonging to the State. THE petitioner submits that under Rule 10 of the said rules, the petitioner is having a right to apply for the quarry lease and the State of Tamil Nadu by its Rule has made it clear for such repatriates as the petitioner the Rules 8 and 9 will not apply except the lease amount to be fixed as an amount of equal to the average of lease amount for the proceeding 10 years or the average proceeding 10 years which ever is higher in addition to the ordinary amount. THE petitioner applied for case of the land quarry in the suit property and the first respondent has sanctioned the lease and executed the lease deed and confirmed the same in its order Ma. 416 (A) 870 dated 16. 6. 1987 for a period of three years. THE plaintiff quarried the same from 19. 6. 1987 to 2. 7. 1987 as per the order of the first respondent and as per the order of stay granted in the Writ Petition No. 8176 of 1987. W. P. No. 8176 of 1987 could not reach from 3. 7. 1987 to21. 7. 1987and the plaintiff could not quarry and this Court made the stay absolute on 21. 1. 1987 and from 22. 7. 1987 onwards, the plaintiff began quarrying the sand. THE first respondent with a view to prevent the petitioner from quarrying the sand has seized 58 lorries between 22. 7. 1987 and 26. 7. 1987 with the aid of police force and the same were released subsequently as no case was made out. THEn the first respondent issued a show cause notice dated 4. 8. 1987 which was served on 10. 8. 1987 stating that the petitioner had quarried sand in a place other than the lease land and on the basis of the said notice dated 4. 8. 1987, the first respondent stopped quarrying the sand. THE petitioner gave an explanation on 17. 8. 1987 and the petitioner could not quarry the sand from 4. 8. 1987 due to the interference of the first respondent. THE present Collector of the District has set up one Mr. Loganathan to cancel the order of grant of lease. THE order of District collector was passed on 25. 5. 1987 and any appeal against that order ought to have been preferred within 30 days i. e. before 23. 6. 1987. But after a long lapse of three-months, an appeal was filed before the Director of Industries and Commerce who ought to have dismissed the appeal on the simple ground that the appeal has become time barred and could be entertained. But the Director of industries and Commerce without giving any opportunity and without following the principles of natural justice has cancelled the order granting lease by the collector. THE lease deed was a registered one. THE petitioner filed an appeal before the Government which was also dismissed. THEn the petitioner filed w. P. No. 5389 of 1988 against the orders of the Director of Industries and commerce and the Government and obtained interim stay on 13. 6. 1988. According to the petitioner, there is no violation of the lease terms and the order of the government dated 15. 11. 1988 has not been served on the petitioner. THE petitioner came to know of the order of the Government only on the previous day prior to filing of the plaint when a typed copy of the order was produced by the Tahsildar. THE order of the Government was not served upon the petitioner. THE petitioner has to enjoy the full terms of three years of lease. But she was allowed to quarry sand only for 87 days. THE petitioner has not been evicted by due process of law and she is a statutory tenant. THE petitioner is entitled to be put in possession of the sand quarrying till the period of three years is over and till the petitioner is evicted by due process of law.

(2.) THE third respondent has filed a counter contending that it is true that the petitioner has applied for grant of lease for quarrying sand in S. No. 284 at Guruvoyal Village and in S. No. 72 at Arakkam-battu village over an extent of 139. 34 acres of Government land for a period of three years. THE first respondent granted a lease for quarrying and transporting sand in S. No. 284 of Guruvoyal Village over an extent of 15 acres and in S. No. 72 of arakkampattu Village for an extent of 25 acres totalling 40 acres for a period of three years. THE lease was granted subject to certain conditions. THE petitioner was directed to remit the lease amount of Rs. 1,05,000 i. e. , Rs. 35,000 per year and other charges amount to Rs. 4,31,795 and to execute a lease agreement by way of confirmation of the lease. THE petitioner remitted only rs. 4,057. 50 on 20. 5. 1987 which include the lease amount of Rs. 35,000 Rs. 720 towards land revenue, L. C. and L. C. S. Rs. 1,837. 50 towards sales tax and rs. 3,500 being 10% security deposit for one year. THE petitioner without complying other either conditions has rushed up to this Court by filing w. P. No. 5677 of 1987 and filed W. M. P. No. 8176 of 1987 seeking for stay of collections of the balance amount from the petitioner and obtained an interim stay on 2. 7. 1987. THE petitioner produced security furnished by one V. R. Pandian for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 and the grant of lease was confirmed on 16. 6. 1987.

(3.) MR. N. R. Chandran learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted at the outset that an appeal lies as against the order made in I. A. No. 432 of 1993 before the learned District Judge and that the civil revision petition has been filed on a bona fide mistaken legal advise. He further submits that the civil Revision Petition now filed under Sec. 115, c. P. C. could be convered as one filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of india.