V VENKATANARAYANAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR VILLUPURAM DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions are directed against the orders of the respondent, the district Collector, Villupuram dated 22. 12. 2008, by which the respondent has cancelled the lease granted in favour of the petitioners.

(2.) THE petitioner in W. P. No. 525 of 2009, was granted stone quarry lease in respect of his patta land measuring 0. 08. 0 hectares in survey No. 47/2 and 1. 22. 5 hectares in survey No. 48/1 totalling 1. 30. 5 hectares in Ambhuzhukkai village, vanur taluk, Villupuram District. The lease deed was executed on 21. 3. 2006 for a period of five years from 21. 3. 2006 to 20. 3. 2011. Likewise, the petitioner in w. P. No. 527 of 2009 was granted stone quarry lease in respect of Government land measuring 0. 40. 5 hectares in survey No. 108/2 in Thiruvakkarai village, Vanur taluk, Villupuram District. The lease deed was executed on 19. 9. 2005 for a period of five yers from 19. 9. 2005 to 18. 9. 2010.

(3.) THE impugned orders are challenged on the ground that the huts are put up by the encroachers and they are not the lawful occupants and the respondents should have taken steps to remove the encroachers and the show-cause notice was issued to avoid some contempt proceedings. It is also stated that the respondent has no right or jurisdiction to permit any encroacher to put up any dwelling hut within the prohibited distance of 300 metres after the leases for quarry were granted. The jurisdictional authority is the Director of Geology and Mining and not the respondent and therefore, the orders of cancellation are without jurisdiction. It is also the case of the petitioners that the encroachers cannot be treated as lawful occupants for the purpose of cancelling the leases, by relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court and therefore, the impugned orders are challenged as violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. The impugned orders are violative of the principles of natural justice, since no personal hearing was given and no enquiry was conducted in the manner known to law and the authority should have acted as per the statutory rules framed.