L SUBRAMANIA REDDY Vs. DEPUTY SALT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS in these writ petitions seek a direction to the second respondent to pay compensation to them in respect of the lands taken over by the second respondent, which had been leased out to the petitioners by the first respondent under registered Lease Deeds and covered under Salt manufacturing Licence No. 41, 15, 42 and 29 respectively.

(2.) SINCE the issue involved in all these writ petitions are common and the facts are also identical, all these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.

(3.) THE brief facts necessary for disposal of these writ petitions are as follows. (a)The petitioners were granted lease by the first respondent by separate lease deeds for certain extent of lands in Athipattu village, Ponneri Taluk, for manufacture of salt. The period of lease was from 1. 1. 1988 to 31. 12. 2007 in W. P. Nos. 12721 to 12723/2000 and from 1. 1. 1988 to 8. 10. 2005 in W. P. No. 12795/2000. Petitioners were also granted licences for the manufacture of salt issued under the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the licences are valid upto 31. 12. 2007 in W. P. Nos. 12721 to 12723/2000, and upto 8. 10. 2005 in W. P. No. 12795/2000. The said lands belong to the Government of India and the petitioners were paying annual ground rent and they produced maximum quantity of salt per acre. Some of the petitioners were even granted lease prior to 1998. Petitioners, for the manufacture of salt, spent huge amounts for levelling their respective lands leased out and prepared salt pans. (b) In the year 1998, North Madras Thermal Power Project was established at Ennore and therefore petitioners could not produce salt as the fly from the Thermal Power Station used to discolour the salt and it turned to blackish in colour. Apart from the said difficulty, there were lack of cheap labour and boats and also due to availability of free iodised salt, petitioners could not majufacture salt. However, they continued to pay the rent. (c)On 25. 2. 1999, petitioners received an order from the first respondent stating that the lease granted to them is terminated for the breach of condition No. 22 and the petitioner's were required to pay the annual rent. Immediately after the receipt of order of termination, petitioners sent demand drafts for the amounts due to the first respondent and requested the first respondent to withdraw the order cancelling the lease and therefore petitioners continued in the possession of the leasehold lands. Petitioners also submitted representations to the Salt Commissioner at Jaipur and on 10. 4. 1999 No Due Certificates were also issued. (d)The first respondent by communication dated 29. 1. 1999 informed the petitioners that the Government of India, had decided to transfer the lands leased out to the petitioners to TIDCO, the second respondent herein and the lessees will be paid compensation and possession would not be handed over to the second respondent until compensation is paid to the lessees. In view of the said communication, petitioners were under the bona fide impression that the earlier order determining lease had been revoked. (e)On 23. 3. 1999 the second respondent called upon the petitioners for a meeting to be held on 30. 3. 1999 for the purpose of verifying the lease deeds and to determine the quantum of compensation. It was also informed that if anyone fail to attend the meeting their lands would be resumed. Petitioners attended the meeting on 30. 3. 1999 and the quantum of compensation payable was also determined and thereafter petitioners surrendered the lands to the representatives of the first respondent, who in turn handed over the lands to the second respondent. However, the second respondent subsequently refused to pay the compensation on the ground that the petitioners lease were determined by the first respondent on 25. 2. 1999, 23. 9. 1998, 16. 11. 1998 and 6. 10. 1998 respectively. According to the petitioners, the said stand of the second respondent is contrary to the communication issued by the first respondent dated 24. 3. 1999 and the petitioners having been dispossessed of the salt pans, which they have made by spending huge amounts in their respective leasehold lands and having not received the compensation, filed these writ petitions for issuance of a writ of mandamus.