T KARUNANIDHI Vs. DEPUTY SALT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A challenge is made to an order of the first respondent made in C. No. 12014 (4)P/tr/01/14947-50, dated 10. 08. 2005 by way of this writ petition seeking for the issue of a writ of certiorari.

(2.) THE affidavit filed in support of the petition and also the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, denying the allegations found in the original affidavit of the petitioner are perused. The court heard the learned counsel on either side.

(3.) THE following facts would emerge as the facts admitted. The petitioner, who is in the business of manufacturing salt, entered into a lease agreement with the first respondent on 13. 6. 2001 in respect of the land measuring 173. 11 acres in the Covelong Salt Factory in the village of Kelambakkam, Kancheepuram District on a consideration of a sum of Rs. 346. 22 as the ground rent and a sum of Rs. 36400/- being the assignment fee for one year, which was deposited as security. The lease was for a period of 20 years commencing from 7. 5. 2001. The total extent of licensed area was 146. 57 acres and incidental area was 26. 54 acres and totally measuring about 173. 11 acres. The license No. 9 contained the survey numbers, boundaries and extent of the area with the plan. As per the agreement, the entire area was handed over to the petitioner for the operation of his business. The factory officer, without conducting survey showed the approximate boundaries of the area, leased out the same to the petitioner. In view of certain circumstances, namely unexpected flood and also he has to arrange for finance, he could not commence the business in time and the delay had occasioned. The petitioner sent a letter on 24. 3. 2004, requesting the first respondent to survey the lease area and fix his boundaries, since according to him, there were certain encroachments made in the leasehold land. In the meantime, the first respondent called upon him to make payment of Rs. 97,160/- by letter dated 6. 1. 2004. The petitioner made payment of Rs. 82,548/- towards ground rent and the assignment fee upto 2003. While the matter stood thus, there was default on the part of the petitioner in making the entire payment. Under these circumstances, the lease was determined by the respondents and the entire possession was taken over. On payment of the entire amount, the original order of determination of lease was cancelled and the petitioner resumed the entire possession of land. While the matter stood thus, a communication was addressed to him that the land measuring 13. 21 acres in S. No. 1b was utilised as approach road not only by the petitioner, but also by the fourth respondent and it was inadvertently included in the original lease agreement and hence, in respect of the portion of 13. 21 acres, the petitioner must surrender the same to the respondents. Immediately, the petitioner gave a reply, denying that it was not so and therefore, it is a part and parcel of the lease deed and hence, it could not be done. While the matter stood thus, an order came to be passed on 10. 08. 2005 that an extent of 13. 21 acres of land was to be resumed, which is the subject matter of challenge before this court.