DISTRICT FOREST OFFICER Vs. OBLI GRANITES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE correctness of the order of the Writ Court dated 26.4.1999 in Common order made in W.P.Nos.7061 and 7062 of 1997 is assailed in these appeals by the District Forest Officer, Erode.

(2.) THE facts of the case are as follows: An extent of 4.89.5 hectares of land in Kannamoochi village, Mettur Taluk Salem District in S.No,265/3 was notified in the Salem District Gazette Extraordinary Issue No.1 dated 3.1.1990 among other lands by the District Collector- third respondent inviting tender applications for grant of quarrying lease of granite under Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. Under the notification, sealed tenders were invited upto 3 p.m on 12.2.1990. In that auction, the first respondent herein has become the successful bidder for a sum of Rs. 81,00,900/- and paid the amount as required by the Rules. THE Director of Geology and Mining through the District Collector recommended to the Government by proceedings dated 20.2.1990 for grant of lease in favour of the first respondent. THE Government by its letter dated 11.5.1990 accepted the recommendation of the Director of Geology and Mining and directed that the bid be confirmed and the letter of commitment be issued in favour of the first respondent. It was further informed by the said letter that the respondent should set up a granite cutting and polishing industry in Tamil Nadu immediately and the actual lease would be granted only after the unit is set up and the first respondent was directed to intimate the fact of setting up of the unit through the Director of Geology and Mining so as to enable the Government to grant necessary quarry lease by having the unit inspected by a team of technical officers. Pursuant to the letter of commitment, the first respondent put up a granite polishing and cutting industry at Chellampillai kuttai Muthunaickampatti village, Omalur Taluk, Salem district over the land in an extent of 21.41 acres with investment in a sum of Rs.4 Crores and informed the setting up of the factory by their letter dated 24.6.1992. Despite informing about the putting up of the industry and requesting for execution of the lease deed, the revenue authorities did not execute the lease deed, which compelled the first respondent to approach this Court by filing writ petition in W.P.No,4159 of 1992 seeking for a relief of writ of mandamus. THE writ petition was disposed of by this Court by observing thus:

(3.) AS directed in W.P.No,3378 of 1997, the first respondent filed a claim petition claiming protection under Section 7 of the Forest Act before the Forest Settlement Officer -fourth respondent, who, by his order dated 7.4.1997 rejected the first respondent's request. AS against that order, the first respondent filed writ petition No,7061 of 1997. When the matter thus stood, the third respondent - District Forest Officer by his proceedings dated 17.2.1997 directed the first respondent not to proceed with the quarrying operation, which is contrary to the Forest Act. Aggrieved by the said proceedings dated 17.2.1997, the first respondent filed writ petition in W.P.No,7062 of 1997.