ANNALAKSHMI Vs. DIRECTOR OF GEOLOGY AND MINING GUINDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.8.2001 made in W.P.No.12489 of 2001. 2.1. Brief facts, in a nutshell, are as follows: The appellant, a Sri Lankan repatriate, was granted lease for quarrying sand in an extent of 40 acres in Survey No.284 of Guruvoyal Village and S.No.72 of Arakmapattu Village of Tiruvallur Taluk and District for a period of three years by the proceedings of the second respondent dated 25.5.1987 and the lease deed was executed on 16.6.1987. The second respondent by proceedings dated 15.11.1988 cancelled the lease granted in favour of the appellant for violations of conditions of the lease deed. 2.

(2.) BEING aggrieved by the cancellation of lease, the appellant filed O.S.No.109 of 1993 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tiruvallur seeking permanent injunction not to interfere with the right of the appellant to quarry in the impugned lands for a further period of three years and for a declaration that the respondents therein are not entitled to enforce the order of the second respondent dated 15.11.1988. Pending suit, the appellant filed interlocutory application in I.A.No.432 of 1993 and as the same was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge by order dated 21.9.1993, the appellant filed C.R.P.No.3096 of 1993 before this Court initially under Section 115 CPC which was later converted as one filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and obtained an order of injunction dated 23.3.1994 till the disposal of the suit O.S.No.109 of 1993, suppressing the fact that the lease period itself expired long back. 2.

(3.) AGAINST the order of the second respondent dated 4.5.1997, the appellant preferred an appeal before the first respondent on 3.6.1997 and pending the same, she preferred W.P.No.8918 of 1997 before this Court seeking a writ of Mandamus to forbear the second respondent herein from interfering with the quarrying operations for a full period of three years in the said quarry and thereby to compensate the loss of period of 206 days. The first respondent treating the matter as subjudice, dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant without going into the merits of the case. This Court, by order dated 1.7.1999 dismissed W.P.No.8918 of 1997 holding that the appellant has no legal right to seek for a direction to quarry.2.