DISTRICT COLLECTOR Vs. VM VEERAPANDIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed against the order dated 09.07.2004 made in writ petition No.19285 of 2004.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as under : THE appellant notified the Government poromboke land bearing SF No.39 measuring an extent of 2.50.0 hectares (part 1) in Ariyanayagipuram village, Sankarankoil Taluk, Tirunelveli District for granting lease right to quarry stones to the successful bidder for a period of five years through tender-cum-auction in Tirunelveli District Gazette Notification No.14 dated 23.04.1999. An auction was conducted on 26.05.1999 and the respondent herein offered a sum of Rs.3,87,900/- as one time lease amount for a period of five years for the said stone quarry from 09.08.1999 to 08.08.2004. Since the amount offered by the respondent in the tender cum auction was the highest, the appellant confirmed his bid by proceedings in Na.Ka.No.41088/99 dated 02.06.1999 and granted lease for a period of five years from the date of execution of the lease deed. THE petitioner remitted the entire amount of Rs.3,87,900/- and the lease deed was also executed on 09.08.1999. THE respondent Veerapandian executed the power of attorney deed on 28.06.2004 authorising his power agent Sundara Mahalingam to supervise and to carry out the quarrying operations. THE respondent could not carry out the quarrying operations for a period of 12 months from 01.06.2000 to 30.08.2000, 01.09.2000 to 30.11.2000, 01.03.2002 to 31.05.2002 and 15.06.2003 to 15.09.2003 on the ground that the land was covered by mud and bushes and there was no transport permit for the said periods. THE unquarried area is about two acres. THErefore, the respondent sent a written representation to the appellant on 29.06.2004 requesting him to permit quarry operations for the non-operative period of 12 months after 08.08.2004. But the appellant has not passed any order. Hence, the respondent has filed a writ petition praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the appellant to permit the respondent to quarry and transport the stones from the leasehold area bearing S.No.39 admeasuring 2.50.0 hectare in Ariyanayagipuram, Sankarankoil Taluk, Tirunelveli district. THE learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition directing the appellant to carry on stone quarry for a further period of 12 months subject to condition that the respondent pays 40% increase thereon along with other charges leviable under law. Aggrieved by that order, this appeal is filed.

(3.) HEARD the learned Government Pleader and perused the records produced by him. The Gazette notification is dated 23.04.1999. We have gone through the terms and conditions of the said notification. There is no specific provision for extension of the lease period. Clause 17 of the notification categorically states that no further lease or extension can be granted under any circumstances. Further, we have also seen the terms and conditions of the lease agreement. The said lease agreement was entered into between the appellant and the respondent on 09.08.1999 as per the appendix to the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules and there is no specific clause in the agreement or in the rules for extension of lease period after expiry of the same. It is not the case of the respondent that he was unable to quarry because of the interference of the appellant or inaction on the part of the appellant. There is also no specific allegation in the affidavit that the appellant is responsible for not quarrying the stone. The only allegation in the affidavit is that the respondent is unable to quarry stones due to the existence of mud and bushes in the site. The respondent knew about the existence of mud and bushes in the site at the time of participating in the auction and it is too late now to complain that he was unable to quarry the stones. In an unreported judgment, the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.3124 of 2001 dated 12.02.2008 has considered the scope of extension of lease period. In that case, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that there is no provision in Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules for extension of period for no fault of the respondents. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, the petitioner therein filed the writ appeal, in which the Division Bench, considering the scope of extension of lease period, has held as follows: "6. The main ground on which extension of lease was sought for is that the appellant could not quarry in view of natural calamities, viz., torrential rains and floods, but not due to the fault of the respondents. 7. Clause (ii) of Rule 8(1) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules categorically states that the lease shall expire on the date specified in the lease deed and in no case extension of the period of lease shall be made. 8. In the case on hand, the appellant had quarried for the entire lease period of three years and thereafter sought for extension of lease for a period of 206 days on the ground that she could not quarry for the said period during torrential rains and heavy floods. Admittedly, there is no specific provision under the lease agreement enabling the appellant to seek extension of lease period to compensate the non-operating period nor a duty is cast on the respondents either to consider the request of the appellant to extend the lease period or to compensate the non-operative period, and in the absence of any such provision either in the lease agreement or under the Rules, it may not be proper for this Court to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.8.2001 made in W.P.No.12489 of 2001. 9. It is settled law that the word "extension" means a prolongation of the existing lease (Provash Chandra Dalui vs. Biswanath Banerjee, AIR 1989 SC 1834). However, if the period of original lease is over, there is no question of granting any extension. If such extension is granted, it would amount to granting of fresh lease after expiry of the original lease. 10. In the case on hand, the appellant having accepted the terms and conditions of the lease, could not have turned round the same so as to make out a case on the basis of the pleadings referred to above seeking further extension of the originally fixed period of lease." In another unreported judgment of this Court in W.P.No.815 of 2001 dated 22.03.2001, under similar circumstances, where the writ petition was filed seeking the relief of a mandamus directing the District Collector, Madurai District to permit the petitioner to quarry and transport the mineral on payment of necessary seniorage fee from quarry lands measuring 3.24.0 hec comprised in S.No.41/1 situated in Kadaneri village, Periyar Taluk, Madurai District for the full period of five years i.e. for further period of nine months and 14 days from 10.01.2001, the learned single Judge has held as follows: