M/s.Gem Granites v. The Secretary to Government Industries Department

Advocate General,assisted byMr.R.Thirugnanam, Special Government Pleader. JUDGMENTK.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, J.In this appeal, the correctness of the order dated dated5.2.2003 made in W.P.No.7467 of 2001 rejecting the appellant'srequest for issuance of a mandamus to direct the respondents torefund the amount deposited by the appellant towards leaseamount, security deposit, area assessment, first year dead rentand stamp duty totalling a sum of RS.2,78,13,700/- for the grantof lease in G.O.3(D) NO.38 Industries Department dated 20.4.1998with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date ofdeposit till the date of settlement, has been questioned. 2. Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counselappearing for the appellant has assailed the order by contendingthat when a Division Bench of this Court, in a public interestlitigation in W.P.No.16876 of 2000, has granted the very samerelief and the correctness of the same is pending considerationbefore the Supreme Court by way of Civil Appeal at the instanceof the respondents, on the principle of comity, the learnedsingle Judge would have merely followed the same, leaving theState to take up the matter on further appeal to the SupremeCourt to be disposed of along with the Civil Appeal. Thejudgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 6.9.2001 beinginter-parties, though not attained finality or operate as resjudicata, on the principle of bar of re-litigation precluded theCourt from making decision against the appellant. 3. On merits, the learned Senior Counsel for theappellant has contended that the grant of mining lease isgoverned by the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules. Theprocedure followed in this case is not in conformity thereof,particularly, Rule 8A(3)(b) and Rule 8A(8)(c) and Form VI-A, inthe sense, that the area offered for lease has not beendemarcated. The parties were not on consensus as to the area. Nobinding concluded agreement has come into force. Consequently,the appellant is entitled for refund of deposit. The entirecorrespondence shows the dispute as to the identity of the areahas been in existence contemporaneously and not as an afterthought. The learned single Judge has erred in relegating theappellant to common law remedy, as there is neither concludedcontract nor disputed question of fact in existence or involved.When the notification itself required the intending bidders to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ascertain the quarry and satisfy about the nature andavailability of the minerals, the respondent cannot grant theland as per their whims and fancies. The writ petition ismaintainable even for an action for recovery of money. 4. Per contra, Mr.G.Masilamani, learned Advocate Generalappearing for the respondents has submitted that the publicinterest litigation now seized of by the Supreme Court does notdeter this Court from deciding this issue independently and as amatter of fact, the writ petition was disposed of as per thedirection of the apex Court by its order dated 18.1.2002. Thearea offered for lease has already been identified anddemarcated by yellow colour wash. The Gazette notificationrequiring the indenting bidders to ascertain and satisfythemselves about the quality of the mineral available in itcannot be construed that the appellant is required to identifythe area to be taken on lease. The procedure contemplated underRule 8A has been followed. Having aware of the area, theappellant submitted his tender, obtained the lease and executedthe lease deed on 7.10.1998. The area offered in lease has beenclearly demarcated in Field Measurement Book and it was annexedalong with the lease deed. The subsequent demarcation made by theTahsildar in a different area by mistake cannot be takenadvantage of by the appellant. The statutory rules as well as thelease deed entered into by the appellant specifically prohibitschange over of the area and further prohibits the appellant fromraising any dispute with regard to the survey number ordemarcation of the area given in lease. If there was a realdispute or no consensus as to the identity of the area, theappellant ought to have protested the same before execution ofthe lease deed. Alternatively he contended that the dispute nowraised by the appellant is a disputed question of fact and thatcannot be adjudicated by means of averments contained in theaffidavit and counter affidavit. It requires evidence in the formof oral and documentary. The order of the learned single Judgerequires no interference.5. We heard the argument of the learned counsel on eitherside and perused the materials on record. The files relating tothe case also are placed before us.6. The material facts, which are necessary to resolve thedispute, are as follows:The appellant, a pioneer in granite quarrying operationin India, pursuant to the notification issued in the District https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Gazette, Madurai offering as many as 15 different areas forgrant of lease for quarrying colour granite, has submitted itstender in respect of an area over an extent of 4 hectares inS.No.80 (Part) at Idayapatti village, which is item No.14 in theSchedule to the Gazette notification. The respondent Governmentby its G.O.3(D) No.38 dated 20.4.1998 granted quarryingpermission to the appellant for a sum of RS.2,51,00,000/-. Theappellant paid the amount and thereafter requested the DistrictCollector to have the area demarcated. As per the direction ofthe District Collector, the Tahsildar demarcated the land andsubmitted his report on 27.10.1998. Even prior to the receipt ofthe said report, the required lease deed was executed by theappellant on 7.10.1998 with the Collector and the same was sentto the Sub-Registrar for registration on 14.10.1998. 7. The sketch of the land annexed along with the leasedeed did not correspond with the area demarcated by theTahsildar. Hence the appellant requested the Registeringauthority not to register the lease deed. When the discrepancywas pointed out, the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining on18.12.1998 confirmed that the leasehold sketch annexed to thelease deed is the correct area offered for quarrying and rejectedthe request of the appellant to modify the sketch of the land asdemarcated by the Tahsildar. All the efforts made by theappellant to the higher authorities went in vain. When thematter stood thus, one Mr.Bose filed a public interest litigationwrit petition in W.P.No.16876 of 2000 for a mandamus directingthe respondents No.1 and 3 herein to allot 4.00.0 hectares of thearea to the appellant herein outside the Kuttai area in SurveyNo.80/Part of Idayapatti village, Madurai North Taluk, and thewrit petition ended with a direction to the respondent to refundthe deposit with 24 percent interest. In these factual basis,the appellant filed writ petition for refund of the amount.8. The respondents filed counter, admitted the fact as tothe grant of lease and execution of document, however contendedthat the subject area among other areas were earlier identifiedand demarcated in the Field Measurement Book as well as in theland before the publication of the Gazette by the AssistantDirector Mineral Investigation Team of the office of the Directorof Geology and Mining, Chennai. The demarcation so made hasbeen approved by the Director of Geology and Mining and theGovernment. Based on the technical report, the land availabilityreport and approval granted by the Government, the area wasoffered for quarrying minerals, after duly demarcating the areaon land. In Survey No.80, two areas were offered for sale. Oneis the subject area and the other one is over an extent of 0.88.0 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ hectares. The appellant after satisfying themselves on personalinspection of the area applied for and obtained the lease in hisfavour. For the reasons best known to him, it has now comeforward with a false claim on untenable grounds. The writpetition was rightly rejected and no interference is called for.9. Now let us consider the issue. 10. We are not able to accept the first part of thecontention of the appellant, as a Division Bench of this Court ina Public Interest Litigation granted the very same relief nowsought for in the present writ petition, the present writpetition should have been allowed leaving the State to agitatethe matter before the apex Court along with Civil Appealpreferred against the order of the Division Bench for more thanone reason. Firstly, the writ petition was disposed ofindependently in obedience of the direction given by the apexCourt in its order dated 18.01.2002, which is evident from theobservations in the order impugned which read as under :".....As regards the order of the Division Benchdated 06.09.2002 in writ petition No.16876 of 2000, itcan only be said that in the public interest litigation,the claim of the local people was that 'poromboke kuttai'should not be allotted for mining purpose. In any event,in the light of the direction of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt dated 18.01.2002 in SLP preferred by the firstrespondent State and others to dispose of the presentwrit petition, the order of the Division Bench directingthe refund in the public interest litigation having notdetermined the core issue involved as between thepetitioner and the third respondent, the said order doesnot deter this Court from deciding the issueindependently in this writ petition."11. Secondly, when the relief sought for in the presentwrit petition has already been granted by the Division Bench infavour of the appellant by its order dated 06.09.2001 in a PublicInterest Litigation, there is no necessity on the part of theappellant to pursue the present writ petition seeking for thevery same relief already granted, even though the writ petitionhas been filed a few months prior to the disposal of the publicinterest litigation. It might be stated as a reason that therelief sought for in the Public Interest Litigation was only forissuance of the writ of mandamus directing the State Governmentand the District Collector to allot four hectares of area to thefourth respondent, the appellant herein outside the 'kuttai' https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ area in survey No.80 (part) of the Idayapatti village, but thefact remains that though the prayer of the above nature wassought for, the Division Bench granted the relief as under :"Under the above facts and circumstances, we areof the considered view that the fourth respondent isentitled to get back the amount deposited way back in1998 with interest. Accordingly, we direct respondents 1and 2 to effect refund of the aforesaid sum ofRs.2,78,13,700/- with interest thereon at the rate of 12%per annum from the date of deposit till the paymentwithin three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order or on production of the same by the fourthrespondent, whichever is earlier. Since the sum ofRs.1,75,700/- reflecting the stamp duty was deposited bythe fourth respondent only on 07.10.1998, we make itclear that the interest at 12% per annum will accrue onlywith effect from 07.10.1998. The writ petition isordered accordingly. No costs."12. The relief granted in the Division Bench judgment isonce again sought for by the appellant in the writ petition. Itis not as if the appellant was not a party to the proceedings.It was the fourth respondent therein and it is also acceptedacross the bar that it is also party to the civil appeal pendingbefore the Supreme Court. Hence the contention of bar of re-litigation put forth against the respondent is directly staringat the appellant. Having obtained the very same relief in the socalled pubic interest litigation, there is no compelling reasonfor the appellant to pursue this case for the very same relief.The action of the appellant thus creates suspicion in the mind ofthe Court as to the bonafide of the appellant and there arematters more than what apparently meeting eyes. In the above saidcircumstances, we are of the view that the first part of thecontention of the appellant has no legs to stand and is liable tobe rejected.13. That leaves us to consider the second part of thecontention as to the correctness of the identity of the areagranted in favour of the appellant with reference to thestatutory provisions. Rule 8A of the Tamil Nadu Minor MineralConcession Rules provided for lease of quarry to private persons https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in respect of red, pink, grey, green, white or other coloured ormulti-coloured granites or any other rock suitable for use asornamental and decorative stones (as obtained during relevantpoint of time). Sub-Rule (3)(a) to Rule 8A provided that theDistrict Collector shall publish a notice in the District Gazetteand also issue an advertisement in two dailies one in Tamil andanother in English having wide circulation in the State of TamilNadu inviting tender applications in sealed cover for (grant oflease of areas where the existence of granite has beenestablished to quarry the mineral) specified in sub rule (1).Sub Rule (4)(a) provided that all applications made in responseto any notice or advertisement shall be in the form prescribed inAppendix VI-A to the Rules. Sub Rule (5) (c) provided that ifany application is made in an area when there is no invitation ofapplication under sub-rule (3), it may be summarily rejected aspremature application. If the conditions incorporated in thesaid Rules are satisfied and if the State Government is of theopinion that the amount offered is reasonable, the StateGovernment shall as per Rule 8A(8)(iv) issue the order grantingthe lease along with the copy of the draft lease deed in FormAppendix I of the Rules for the purpose of execution of the leasedeed. Sub-Rule (8) (c) to Rule 8A provided that the lease deedshall be executed by the applicant with the District Collectorconcerned within one month from the date of receipt of the orderof the State Government or within such further period notexceeding a period of thirty days as the District Collector mayallow in this behalf. The lease deed shall be executed by theapplicant on the appointed date and time with a map of thedemarcated leased out area signed by the District Collector andthe lessee, appended it. Sub Rule (9)(d) provided that nolessee is entitled to raise any dispute with reference to thesurvey and demarcation of the area leased out to him afterexecution of the lease deed. 14. Though the phraseology "grant of lease of areaswhere the existence of granite has been established to quarry themineral" has been incorporated in sub rule (3) to Rule 8A by G.O.Ms. No.86 Industries dated 22.02.2001. Even prior to suchincorporation, before-ever any area is offered for quarrying, inconsonance with Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development)Act, 1957, the Department of Director of Geology and Mining usedto conduct prospective mining activity, i.e., surveying andidentifying the area, which bears minerals, the land availabilityfor excavation and make a report to the Government for approvalfor the purpose of offering the area for excavation of minerals. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

15. In this case, such prospective activities, i.e., areaidentification exercise has been conducted by the technical teamof the department of Geology and Mining and identified the areasand submitted a report on 06.03.1997. As the report is havingsignificance in this case, we consider that the reproduction ofthe same is necessary :From ToA.Palnivel, The Director of GeologyAsst Director, and Mining,Dept. of Geology and Mining, Guindy, Chennai 32Guindy, Chennai 32.Sir,Sub : Geological investigation work for multicoloured granted bearing areas in Madurai District–Report submitted – reg.Ref : Memo RC No.2291/B4/97 dated 13.2.97from Director of Geology and MiningChennai 32.As per the memo cited in the reference above, Iproceeded to Madurai for taking up of geologicalinvestigation work for multi coloured granite bearingareas to be brought out for the ensuing tender cumauction system.As per the instruction of Deputy Director(Granite investigation) I have compiled the particularsof areas available for multi coloured granite bearingarea in Madurai District as follows :1)Areas preferred under the erstwhile rule 39 ofTNMMCR 1959 for which Govt have rejected theapplication.2) The areas already identified during the year89-90 for bringing the areas under III phasetender.3) Fresh areas4) The areas covered under application by TAMINIn the above process a total extent 88.965 hectaresof areas in parts of Idaiyapatti village in MaduraiNorth Taluk, Thiruvathavoor, Keelavalavoo, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Kottampatti, Ayyapatti, Chokkalingapuram,Thiruchunnai, Kambur villages of Melur Taluk,A.Kokkulam village of Thirumangalam taluk,Sankarappanaickanur village of Usilampatti talukhave been identified. The list showing the areasfor individual field are enclosed. Three colouredvariety of raw silk, tiger skin and kashmir whitegranite have been identified.All the above areas identified for coloured graniteare free from from any litigation as per availablerecords in D.D (mines) office, Madurai. There are nopermanent structures and habitation in the nearbyareas. The Deputy Director of Geology and Mining,Madurai has been requested to arrange for obtainingthe village records, FMB sketch and land availabilityreports for the areas identified for bringing themunder tender cum auction system.Yours faithfully,Sd/- 6.3.97 Asst. DirectorGranite Areas inspected for bringing the areas undertender cum auction system.Sl.TalukVillageSF Total ProposedNo. extent Extent in in hec in hec1.Madurai North Idayapatti 78/3 1.83.5 1.83.5 & 112. " " 1/135.12.0 4.00.03." " 80 59.37.5 4.00.04." " 79127.21.5 0.89.0 8059.37.5 0.88.0---------- 1.97.0----------5.Melur Thiruvathavoor556/113.15.02. 80.56.""525/141.64.5 6.00.0 A B 6.00.07. ""535/21.33.0 1.33.08. ""525/6,71.72.0 1.72.09. ""529/10.64.0 0.64.010. " Keelavalavoo272/1&4 2.38.0 2.38.0 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11. " Kottampatti140/111.33.5 6.00.0 12. " "115/2A13.01.06.00.013. "Ayyapatti4026.34.5 3.00.014. " "4983.72.0 1.65.015. " Chokkalingapuram1067.46.5 4.00.016. ""47725.61.5 10.00.017. ""42226.65.0 4.40.018. "Thiruchunai833.03.5 3.03.519. "Kambur32/2-- 6.00.020. "ThirumangalamA.Kokkulam1/118.35.0 10.00.021. "Usilampatti84/16.76.0 2.00.0Sakkarappanaickanur---------- 88.965----------Diary for the month of February 97......20.2.97Madurai Idaiyapatti and back halt - inspectedthe granite bearing areas in SF.1/1,80, 79andother surrounding fields.21.2.97Preparation of maps and report for the areasinspected........."16. From the above, it is evident that the disputedquarry in this case, which is shown as Sl.No.2 in the report hasbeen identified, demarcated on land and maps to that effect havebeen prepared. As per the map (sketch) appended to the report inrespect of survey No.80 of Idayapatti village over an extent of59.37.5 hectares, two areas have been identified and demarcated- one is over an extent of 4.00.0 hectares and another is 0.88.0hectares. The area under dispute is found demarcated in squareshape. Pursuant to the said report, the land availability reporthas been obtained from the Tahsildar, Madurai North, which isdated 24.06.1997. The report is in the form of format. Sl. No.12of the format requires details about fresh FMB sketch andcombined sketch in triplicate prepared by the surveyor and thedetails of the recommendations for grant of lease, encroachments,nearby houses, electric lines, near water courses, approach roadfacility, etc., to be marked in the sketches in colour and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sketches should be attested by the Tahsildar. Against thatserial number, it is stated that fresh FMB sketch in triplicatehas been enclosed and there is no objection from the public. Inthe plan appended to the land availability report in respect ofS.No.80 (Part) also, the area identified has been demarcated withspecific measurements on all sides. The two areas demarcated inthe plan appended to the land availability report are identicalas that of the (area) plan appended to the "Area identificationreport" submitted by the Assistant Director of Geology andMining. The disputed land is only in square shape.17. On the basis of these two reports, the DistrictCollector has sent a proposal to the Government for approval ofthe said area to be brought under tender-cum-auction systemthrough the Director of Geology and Mining, by his letter dated08.08.1997. The Government by its proceedings dated 14.10.1997has granted its approval. Pursuant to the same, the DistrictCollector caused a publication in the Madurai District Gazettedated 04.11.1997 in issue No.13. The quarries offered for tendercum auction in the Schedule to notification is exactly the re-production of the quarries identified and demarcated by theAssistant Director of Geology and Mining in his "Areaidentification report dated 6.3.1997" which is extracted abovebarring four areas i.e., Kambur, A.Kokulam andSakkarappanaickanur and Kizhavalavu. So far as the disputedquarry in the survey Number 80 (Part) is concerned, there is nodifference in the area. 18. Pursuant to the notification, the appellant filed histender application in the form prescribed in Appendix VI underRule 8A. Sl. No.10 of the Form requires the applicant to statethe details of the area for which tender application was made.In its application the appellant has stated in col. III 'thevillage' as Idayaaptti village, in col. IV, survey number 80(part) and in column V, area in hectares, the appellant hasstated as 4.00.0 hectares. In respect of the column 'any otherparticulars which the applicant wishes to furnish', the appellanthas stated that the Government should hand over the leaseholdarea for peaceful possession and operation of quarry without anyrestriction/objection by any of the Government departments andwithout any unauthorised encroachments. The Government shouldalso provide proper area for formation of roads to approach thequarry to conduct quarrying operations as well as to transportthe blocks without any problem or any difficulty. It alsodeclared in the Form that the particulars furnished by theappellant are correct and the appellant is ready to furnish anyother details and security deposit as may be required by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ department or District Collector and it further sweared that itknows very well about the provisions contemplated under the TamilNadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 in respect of grantingof quarry lease and other conditions stipulated in connectionwith the quarrying and other operations. Thus, the statutoryrequirements as provided in the Tamil Nadu Minor MineralConcession Rules, 1959 has been complied with by the respondentsin this case. The appellant also submitted its tender applicationas required by the rules without any doubt about the area indispute. The learned Senior Counsel relied on the followingdecisions to contend that the respondent has to exercise thepower as per the statute:(1) GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. GIRDHARLALMOTILAL AND ANOTHER (AIR 1969 SC 267);(2) NARBADA PRASAD VS. CHHAGANLAL AND OTHERS(AIR 1969 SC 395);(3) STATE OF GUJARAT VS. SHANTILAL MANGALDASAND OTHERS (AIR 1969 SC 634);(4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. ANJUMM.H.GHASWALA ((2002) 1 SCC 633); and(5) CHANDRA KISHORE JHA VS. MAHAVIR PRASAD((1999) 8 SCC 266)."As we have concluded that the respondents have exercisedtheir power in accordance with the statutory rules only, theabove judgments cannot be made applicable to the instant case.The particulars stated from the various documents including theapplication form of the appellant and the admission made inparagraphs Nos.4 and 12 of the solemn affidavit which we referlater, it is clear that there was clear consensus about the areaoffered for sale in S.No.80 (Part). The area shown in theF.M.B. annexed to the lease deed is exactly the same, that wasshown in the plan prepared and appended in Area IdentificationReport submitted by the Assistant Director of Geology and Miningand the plan appended to the land availability report of theTahsildar, Madurai.19. The requirement contained in the Gazette Notificationthat the intending bidders have to ascertain and satisfythemselves as to the quality and quantity of minerals availablein the area offered has been projected in forefront by theappellant.20. We are not able to countenance the arguments of thelearned counsel on this issue also because the requirement reliedon by the appellant cannot by any stretch of imagination beregarded as allowing the intending bidders to choose the areawhich they want for quarry. It only cautioned the intending https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ bidders to ascertain themselves about the quality and quantityavailable in the already demarcated area, mentioned in theSchedule to the notification. On the Government approving theareas identified by the technical committee of Director ofGeology and Mining, those areas have been demarcated with yellowpaint on ground. The appellant having satisfied about theidentity of the area and applied for that area, which is evidentfrom the particulars stated in the tender form submitted by it,the details of the same are stated in paragraph No.18 above.Further, in paragraph 4 of the affidavit filed in support of thewrit petition the appellant has stated without any uncertainterms as follows:"The petitioner states that as per the saidnotification, the bidders were required to approach theauthorities and inspect the area and ascertain thequality and quantity of granite available in the area inquestion. The petitioner was interested in submittingtheir bids for the above area and therefore approachedthe appropriate authorities of the Geology and Mining andrequested for the sketch of the area to be granted sincethe lands in S.No.80 was of a large extent. Thepetitioner was informed that they could identify the areaby taking note of the portion which was marked by yellowpaints, as the area meant for the grant of quarry lease.Accordingly, the petitioner inspected the place andidentified the area which was marked in yellow paint andthereafter participated in the tender-cum-auction held on6.1.98 after paying the EMD of Rs.1,00,000/-. The bid ofthe petitioner ofRs.2,51,00,000/- (Rupees Two CroresFifty-one Lakh only) was the highest and was accordinglyaccepted by the authorities and as per G.O.3(D) No.38Industries (MMBI Dept., dated 20.4.98 lease has beengranted to the petitioner." (underline supplied)The appellant further averred in paragraph 12 of theaffidavit that the tenderors were shown the area marked withyellow paint on ground before participation of tender cumauction. 21. Thus, admittedly the appellant was very much aware ofthe area demarcated and made available for quarrying andthereafter only applied for lease. When such is the factualposition, the appellant's contention now made that there was noconsensus about the area is nothing but a false contention tosuit to its convenience. When there is no requirement either in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules or in thenotification to furnish any sketch either by the Collector or byTahsidlar, the appellant now taking advantage of the subsequentsketch furnished by the Tahsildar, which has no legal basis orconsequence, pleaded that the respondent is taking advantage ofits own omission, which contention is raised only for rejectionas there was no omission on the part of the respondent is ourconsidered view. We are not able to understand what prompted theappellant to request the District Collector to have the areareidentified. Of course, the Collector, without having anyreference to the earlier proceedings, such as sketch submitted bythe Area Technical Team of the Director of Geology and Mining andthe sketch submitted in the land availability report issued bythe Tahsildar has directed the Tahsidlar to demarcate the land,who, in a casual manner disregarding all the earlier demarcationsdone by the authorities, has identified some other area. Themistake so committed cannot be taken advantage of by theappellant. The condition incorporated in the lease deed and thestatutory provisions along with the conditions of the gazettenotification do not permit the appellant to raise the dispute ofthe present nature after execution of the lease deed. Thereliance of the appellant on STATE OF ORISSA VS. MANGALAM TIMBERPRODUCTS LIMITED ((2004) 1 SCC 139) and TARSEEM SINGH VS.SUKMINDER SIGNH ((1998) 3 SCC 471) is a misplaced reliance. 22. As per Rule 8-A (9) (c), the lessee, in addition tothe one time lease amount and other amounts, has to pay theseigniorage fee on the mineral quarried or dead rent which everis higher. The appellant having obtained a mining lease in itsfavour, would have given more revenue to the State if he quarriedgranite blocks by way of seigniorage fee. The appellant isliable to pay dead rent. We are of the view that after theconcluded contract has come into existence, the appellant cannothave the relief as sought for. 23. The tender amount quoted by the appellant wasRs.30,60,000/-. But it offered Rs.2.51 crores in the auction.Nobody can believe the contention of the appellant that withoutascertaining the area it has offered nearly 8 times over andabove the amount quoted in the tender. That apart, the appellanthas also executed the lease agreement as required under theprovisions of the Act along with FMB sketch prepared by theauthorities. We are constrained to reiterate that the FMBattached to the lease deed delineating the leasehold area https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ correspond to the area delineated in the land availability reportissued by the Tahsildar and corresponds to the area delineated inthe map attached to the area investigation report submitted bythe Assistant Director of Geology and Mining. 24. In respect of the contention that no concludedcontract came into existence, the appellant put forth that thelease deed has not been registered. The non registration of thelease deed cannot be taken advantage of by the appellant tocontend otherwise because what is required under the statutoryprovisions is only the execution of the lease deed and not itsregistration. The registration is only a formality and evenafter the registration it relates back to the date of executionis the settled law. The registration has also been stalled bythe appellant itself questioning the stamp duty demanded by theregistering authorities, as could be seen from the order made inwrit petition No.8515 of 1999 dated 10.08.2006 in respect of thesubject quarry. Hence this contention is also liable to berejected. 25. On the basis of material placed before us i.e., therelevant files with reference to the detailed discussion has beenmade by us supra, we are of the view that the appellant hasmiserably failed to establish his contention that the areaoffered is not the area demarcated by the Tahsildar. Havingregard to the conclusion so arrived by us, we are of the viewthat there is nothing more available to the appellant to provebefore the Civil Court. We are of the view that there is nomistake on the part of the respondent and it is the appellant,who has created an imaginary dispute and drag on the matter allalong. Therefore, he is not entitled for the relief sought for. 26. For the fore-going reasons, the writ appeal isdismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. UskSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To:1.The Secretary to GovernmentIndustries DepartmentFort St.GeorgeChennai – 600 0092. The Director of Geology and Mining Industrial Estate Guindy, Chennai-32.3. The District CollectorMadurai DistrictMadurai.•One cc to Ms. C. Uma Advocate sR 8891•One cc to Govt Pleader SR 8837VSV (co)sg 27/2/08Order in W.A.No.1203 of 200320.02.2008