Annalakshmi v. The Director of Geology and Mining Guindy, Chennai-32

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 12.2.2008CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARANANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHIW.A.No.3124 of 2001Annalakshmi.. Appellant Vs1. The Director of Geology and Mining Guindy, Chennai-32.2. The District Collector Tiruvallur District at Tiruvallur.3. The Assistant Director of Geology and Mining Collectorate Campus Tiruvallur... RespondentsPRAYER: Against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.8.2001made in W.P.No.12489 of 2001. Petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus tocall for the records of the Ist and 2nd respondents in Proc.R.CNo.10708/MMJ/2000 dated 27.6.2001 and Proc.RC.No. 416/87/02dt.4.5.1997 respectively and quash the same and consequently directthe respondents to extend the period of lease quary for 206 days inrespect of the fields in an extent of 40.00 acres in S.No. 72 inArkampattu and S.No. 284 in Guruvoyal village in Thiruvallur Talukand District to complete the three full years of the lease period.For Appellant:Mr.T.Pon RamkumarFor Respondents :Mr.P.S.RamanAddl. Advocate Generalassisted byMr.Jyothimanian https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ JUDGMENT(Delivered by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.)This appeal is directed against the order of the learned SingleJudge dated 20.8.2001 made in W.P.No.12489 of 2001.2.1. Brief facts, in a nutshell, are as follows:The appellant, a Sri Lankan repatriate, was granted lease forquarrying sand in an extent of 40 acres in Survey No.284 of GuruvoyalVillage and S.No.72 of Arakmapattu Village of Tiruvallur Taluk andDistrict for a period of three years by the proceedings of thesecond respondent dated 25.5.1987 and the lease deed was executed on16.6.1987. The second respondent by proceedings dated 15.11.1988cancelled the lease granted in favour of the appellant for violationsof conditions of the lease deed.2.2. Being aggrieved by the cancellation of lease, the appellantfiled O.S.No.109 of 1993 on the file of the Subordinate Court,Tiruvallur seeking permanent injunction not to interfere with theright of the appellant to quarry in the impugned lands for a furtherperiod of three years and for a declaration that the respondentstherein are not entitled to enforce the order of the secondrespondent dated 15.11.1988. Pending suit, the appellant filedinterlocutory application in I.A.No.432 of 1993 and as the same wasdismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge by order dated 21.9.1993,the appellant filed C.R.P.No.3096 of 1993 before this Courtinitially under Section 115 CPC which was later converted as onefiled under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and obtained anorder of injunction dated 23.3.1994 till the disposal of the suitO.S.No.109 of 1993, suppressing the fact that the lease period itselfexpired long back.2.3. On the strength of the interim injunction granted by thisCourt, by order dated 23.3.1994 made in C.R.P.No.3096 of 1993, theappellant restarted quarrying operation from 27.5.1994 and stoppedthe same on 27.2.1997, instead of 27.5.1997, as the appellant hadalready quarried for three months. 2.4. Alleging that due to torrential rains and heavy floods andcollapse of the causeway across the river, she could not operate thequarry for about 206 days out of the total lease period and therebyshe was subjected to heavy loss and mental agony, the appellant filedan application on 1.3.1997 to the second respondent seekingpermission to quarry in the impugned lands for 206 days. The secondrespondent, by proceedings dated 4.5.1997 rejected the request of theappellant. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.5. Against the order of the second respondent dated 4.5.1997,the appellant preferred an appeal before the first respondent on3.6.1997 and pending the same, she preferred W.P.No.8918 of 1997before this Court seeking a writ of Mandamus to forbear the secondrespondent herein from interfering with the quarrying operations fora full period of three years in the said quarry and thereby tocompensate the loss of period of 206 days. The first respondenttreating the matter as subjudice, dismissed the appeal preferred bythe appellant without going into the merits of the case. This Court,by order dated 1.7.1999 dismissed W.P.No.8918 of 1997 holding thatthe appellant has no legal right to seek for a direction to quarry.2.6. The appellant, thereafter, filed W.M.P.No.10780 of 2000 inW.P.No.8918 of 1997 to review the order dated 1.7.1999 made inW.P.No.8918 of 1997 and to modify the said order. The prayer inW.P.No.8918 of 1997 was amended by order dated 30.6.2000 inW.M.P.No.14258 of 2000 and this Court, by order dated 30.6.2000 inW.P.No.8918 of 1997 directed the first respondent to restore theappeal dated 3.6.1997 and to dispose of the same on merits.2.7. The first respondent, by proceedings dated 27.6.2001,dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the second respondentdated 4.5.1997. Exasperated, the appellant filed W.P.No.12489 of 2001for issue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for therecords of respondents 1 and 2 in proceedings dated 27.6.2001 and4.5.1997 respectively, to quash the same and to consequently directthe respondents to extend the period of lease quarry for 206 days inrespect of the impugned lands.2.8. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 20.8.2001 inW.P.No.12489 of 2001, dismissed the writ petition holding that thereis no provision in Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules forextension of period for no fault of the respondents; and that theappellant has not made out any case for grant of the prayer as soughtfor.2.9. Hence, the present writ appeal.3.1. It may not be out of context to state that against the saidorder dated 20.8.2001 in W.P.No.12489 of 2001 the appellant hadfiled a Review Application No.91 of 2001 on the grounds that (i) thelaw laid down by the judgment dated 27.4.2000 of the Division Benchof this Court in W.A.No.766 of 2000 was not taken into account; and(ii) the entire lease amount was paid and the area was available forlease.3.2. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 26.9.2001 made inReview Application No.91 of 2001 dismissed the review applicationholding that the grounds raised by the appellant cannot be treated asan apparent error on the face of the order dated 20.8.2001 inW.P.No.12489 of 2001. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. It may also be not out of place to mention that pending thisappeal, the suit in O.S.No.109 of 1993 on the file of Sub Court,Tiruvallur was transferred to District Munsif Court, Tiruvallur andrenumbered as O.S.No.673 of 1996 and the same was dismissed fordefault on 3.11.2004.5. Surprisingly, in the case on hand, the appellant instead ofchallenging the proceedings of the second respondent dated 15.11.1988cancelling the lease granted in favour of the appellant forviolations of conditions of the lease deed by way of a writ petition,preferred suit in O.S.No.109 of 1993 and by order dated 23.3.1994 inC.R.P.No.3096 of 1993 obtained an order of injunction as prayed fortill the disposal of the suit O.S.No.109 of 1993. Concededly, theorder of second respondent dated 15.11.1988 cancelling lease infavour of the appellant remains unchallenged as on date.6. The main ground on which extension of lease was sought for isthat the appellant could not quarry in view of natural calamities,viz., torrential rains and floods, but not due to the fault of therespondents. 7. Clause (ii) of Rule 8(1) of the Tamil Nadu Minor MineralConcession Rules categorically states that the lease shall expire onthe date specified in the lease deed and in no case extension of theperiod of lease shall be made. 8. In the case on hand, the appellant had quarried for theentire lease period of three years and thereafter sought forextension of lease for a period of 206 days on the ground that shecould not quarry for the said period during torrential rains andheavy floods. Admittedly, there is no specific provision under thelease agreement enabling the appellant to seek extension of leaseperiod to compensate the non-operating period nor a duty is cast onthe respondents either to consider the request of the appellant toextend the lease period or to compensate the non-operative period,and in the absence of any such provision either in the leaseagreement or under the Rules, it may not be proper for this Court tointerfere with the order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.8.2001made in W.P.No.12489 of 2001.9. It is settled law that the word "extension" means aprolongation of the existing lease (Provash Chandra Dalui v.Biswanath Banerjee, AIR 1989 SC 1834). However, if the period oforiginal lease is over, there is no question of granting anyextension. If such extension is granted, it would amount to grantingof fresh lease after expiry of the original lease. 10. In the case on hand, the appellant having accepted the termsand conditions of the lease, could not have turned round the same so https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ as to make out a case on the basis of the pleadings referred to aboveseeking further extension of the originally fixed period of lease. 11. Be that be as it may, in view of the amendment made to Rule38 of the Tamil Nadu Mines and Mineral Concession Rules byG.O.Ms.No.95, Industries (MMC.I) Department, dated 1.10.2003, theappellant has no right as on date to quarry in the impugned lands:"38-A. Quarrying of sand by the State Government–Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, orany order made or action taken thereunder of anyjudgement or decree or order of any Court, all existingleases for quarrying sand in Government lands andpermissions/leases granted in ryotwari lands shall ceaseto be effective on and from the date of coming intoforce of this rule and the right to exploit sand in theState shall vest with the State Government to theexclusion of others. The proportionate lease amount forthe unexpired period of the lease and unadjustedseigniorage fee, if any will be refunded."12. For all the reasons aforesaid, even though the learnedcounsel for the appellant made an endorsement to withdraw the appeal,we found it a fit case to deal with the matter on merits, asdiscussed above, and accordingly, we hold that we find no infirmityin the order of the learned Single Judge warranting interference.The appeal stands dismissed but without any order as to costs.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.sasiTo:1. The Director of Geology and Mining. Guindy, Chennai-32.2. The District Collector, Tiruvallur District, at Tiruvallur.3. The Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, Collectorate Campus Tiruvallur.+ one cc to M/s. AL. Ganthimathi, Advocate,SR.7305+ one cc to The Government Pleader, SR.7071CU(CO)RP 28.02.08W.A.No.3124 of 2001