S VADARATHNAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY consent of the learned counsel for both parties, the writ petition is disposed of.

(2.) THE petitioner entered into a lease agreement with the second respondent in respect of 347.23 Acres of salt pan lands in Vayalur Village, Ponneri Taluk in Tiruvallur District, belonging to the second respondent for the purpose of manufacturing salt on the same. THE said lease agreement was registered before the Sub-Registrar at Ponneri as Document No,563/1990. THE period of lease is to expire on 01.10.2009. From the date of lease, namely 07.02.1990, the petitioner claims that he was manufacturing salt on the said lands and he was also complying with the terms and conditions of the lease. While so, according to him, on 29.01.1999, the second respondent requested the petitioner to surrender the lands for the purpose of handing over the same to the Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporation (TIDCO) for establishing a Petro Chemical Park. It was agreed upon during the talks that on such surrender of the lands 66% of the land cost would be paid by TIDCO to the Salt Department and 34% would be paid to the lease namely the petitioner. But, it was not so done. Instead, by order dated 06.05.1999, the lease was terminated by the second respondent. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner made a respresentation on 28.05.1999 and the same was also rejected. Challenging the above, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No,911 of 2000, before this Court. But this Court disposed of the writ petition without going into the merits of the case by giving liberty to the petitioner to institute a Civil suit challenging the cancellation of the lease. THE said order was passed by this Court on 21.01.2000. THEreafter, the petitioner issued notice Under Section 80 (1) C.P.C. and then filed O.S.No,2354 of 2000, before the City Civil Court, Chennai for declaration that the cancellation order dated 06.05.2009 and the subsequent order on the representation of the petitioner are null and void and for consequential relief of injunction and also not to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property.

(3.) AGGRIEVED over the same, the respondents filled a second appeal before this Court with a delay of 893 days. C.M.P.No,2741 of 2006 was filed by the respondents seeking to condone the said delay and then to entertain the second appeal but, this Court by order dated 18.07.2006 dismissed C.M.P.No,2741 of 2006, thereby declining to condone the delay.