RAJAGANAPATHY AND OTHERS Vs. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By an order dated 29.10.2012, the first respondent had rejected the petitioner's request for renewal of the lease of land measuring about 9.25.0 hectares in Survey No.416/1 in Minjur Village and 19.58.5 hectares in Survey No.468/4 in Vallur Village, in all 28.83.5 hectares equivalent to 71.22 acres. (hereinafter referred to as 'the subject lands').

(2.) The Government in their letter No.108 Revenue Department, dated 05.01903 had sanctioned the renewal of the subject lands for a period of 99 years. Pursuant to the Government Order, a lease deed was executed between the then Secretary of State for Indian Council and V. Krishnasamy Mudaliar in consideration of a sum of Rs.350/-. The said lease was registered as Document No.1908 of 1905, dated 11.10.1905 for a period of 99 years commencing from 17.06.1905. On 14.06.2004, the said lease period had expired. By an order dated 103.2009, passed in W.P. No. 16068 of 2008 filed by the first petitioner and two others, the petitioners were directed to submit a detailed application before the District Collector, Thiruvallur seeking renewal of the lease which was directed to be considered within a period of 12 weeks. On receipt of such application, the third respondent, after perusing the reports of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri and Tahsildar, Ponneri and after hearing the petitioners in W.P. No. 16068 of 2008 had submitted a report to the Government on 107.2012 narrating the circumstances which compelled the resumption of the lands granted on lease for a period of 99 years. The second respondent had also recommended the proposals submitted by the third respondent in his letter dated 21.08.201 Considering the reports of the second and third respondents, the Government had passed the impugned order dated 29.10.2012 cancelling the lease granted in favour of the V. Krishasamy Mudalaiar and ordered for resumption of the subject lands. The petitioners who are the legal heirs of V. Krishnasamy Mudaliar have challenged the said order in W.P.No.3504 of 2013. Subsequently, the third respondent has passed orders on the representation of the first petitioner and three others negating the request for renewal of lease of the subject lands in R.C. No. 38061/2006/B2, dated 27.11.201 Challenging the same, the petitioners have filed W.P. No. 3505 of 2013.

(3.) Mr. K.N. Nataraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order has been passed arbitrarily and it was colorable exercise of power on the part of the first respondent. He would further submit that the first respondent had acted in a mechanical manner in arriving at a conclusion that the lands were not utilised and that the determination of the character of land is not a conclusive proof only on the report of a subordinate officer. Since the petitioners' forefathers had cultivated the said lands for almost 100 years, they have a vested right to have the lease renewed in their favour.