The District Collector,Tirunelveli District,Tirunelveli v. V.M.Veerapandian

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 29.04.2008Coram :THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIANandTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJAWrit Appeal No.4242 of 2004& WAMP No.8037 of 2004The District Collector,Tirunelveli District,Tirunelveli.Appellantv.V.M.Veerapandian, represented by Power of Attorney S.Sundara MahalingamRespondentWrit Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent againstthe order of a learned single Judge dated 09.07.2004 made in writpetition No.19285 of 2004. Presented to this Court under Article 226of the constitution of India, to issue a writ of Mandamus, directthe respondent to permit the petitioner to quarry and transport thestones from the leasehold area bearing S.No.39 admeasuring 2.50.0hectare in Ariyanayagipuram, Sankarankoil Taluk, TirunelveliDistrict for a period of 12 months.For appellant:Mr.R.Thirugnanam,Special Government PleaderFor respondent:No appearanceJUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was deliveredby P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA, J.)This appeal is filed against the order dated 09.07.2004 made inwrit petition No.19285 of 2004.2. The brief facts of the case are as under :The appellant notified the Government poromboke land bearing SFNo.39 measuring an extent of 2.50.0 hectares (part 1) inAriyanayagipuram village, Sankarankoil Taluk, Tirunelveli Districtfor granting lease right to quarry stones to the successful bidder https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for a period of five years through tender-cum-auction in TirunelveliDistrict Gazette Notification No.14 dated 23.04.1999. An auction wasconducted on 26.05.1999 and the respondent herein offered a sum ofRs.3,87,900/- as one time lease amount for a period of five yearsfor the said stone quarry from 09.08.1999 to 08.08.2004. Since theamount offered by the respondent in the tender cum auction was thehighest, the appellant confirmed his bid by proceedings inNa.Ka.No.41088/99 dated 02.06.1999 and granted lease for a periodof five years from the date of execution of the lease deed. Thepetitioner remitted the entire amount of Rs.3,87,900/- and the leasedeed was also executed on 09.08.1999. The respondent Veerapandianexecuted the power of attorney deed on 28.06.2004 authorising hispower agent Sundara Mahalingam to supervise and to carry out thequarrying operations. The respondent could not carry out thequarrying operations for a period of 12 months from 01.06.2000 to30.08.2000, 01.09.2000 to 30.11.2000, 01.03.2002 to 31.05.2002 and15.06.2003 to 15.09.2003 on the ground that the land was covered bymud and bushes and there was no transport permit for the saidperiods. The unquarried area is about two acres. Therefore, therespondent sent a written representation to the appellant on29.06.2004 requesting him to permit quarry operations for the non-operative period of 12 months after 08.08.2004. But the appellanthas not passed any order. Hence, the respondent has filed a writpetition praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the appellantto permit the respondent to quarry and transport the stones from theleasehold area bearing S.No.39 admeasuring 2.50.0 hectare inAriyanayagipuram, Sankarankoil Taluk, Tirunelveli district. Thelearned single Judge has allowed the writ petition directing theappellant to carry on stone quarry for a further period of 12 monthssubject to condition that the respondent pays 40% increase thereonalong with other charges leviable under law. Aggrieved by thatorder, this appeal is filed. 3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellantsubmitted that the learned single Judge is wrong in extending thelease period and further contended that there are no provisions forextension of the lease period under the Rule or in the terms andconditions of the notification or the clauses in the lease agreemententered into between the appellant and the respondent. It is alsocontended that it was not because of any inaction on the part of theauthorities that the respondent could not carry on the quarryingactivity, and the mud and bush were existing in the quarry site evenbefore the auction took place and therefore, the order passed by thelearned single Judge is not in accordance with law and the same hasto be set aside.4. Inspite of notice, there is no representation on behalf ofthe respondent.5. Heard the learned Government Pleader and perused the recordsproduced by him. The Gazette notification is dated 23.04.1999. Wehave gone through the terms and conditions of the said notification. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ There is no specific provision for extension of the lease period.Clause 17 of the notification categorically states that no furtherlease or extension can be granted under any circumstances. Further,we have also seen the terms and conditions of the lease agreement.The said lease agreement was entered into between the appellant andthe respondent on 09.08.1999 as per the appendix to the Tamil NaduMinor Mineral Concession Rules and there is no specific clause inthe agreement or in the rules for extension of lease period afterexpiry of the same. It is not the case of the respondent that hewas unable to quarry because of the interference of the appellant orinaction on the part of the appellant. There is also no specificallegation in the affidavit that the appellant is responsible fornot quarrying the stone. The only allegation in the affidavit isthat the respondent is unable to quarry stones due to the existenceof mud and bushes in the site. The respondent knew about theexistence of mud and bushes in the site at the time of participatingin the auction and it is too late now to complain that he wasunable to quarry the stones. In an unreported judgment, theDivision Bench of this Court in W.A.No.3124 of 2001 dated 12.02.2008has considered the scope of extension of lease period. In thatcase, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition holdingthat there is no provision in Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral ConcessionRules for extension of period for no fault of the respondents.Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, the petitionertherein filed the writ appeal, in which the Division Bench,considering the scope of extension of lease period, has held asfollows:"6. The main ground on which extension of lease wassought for is that the appellant could not quarry in viewof natural calamities, viz., torrential rains and floods,but not due to the fault of the respondents. 7. Clause (ii) of Rule 8(1) of the Tamil Nadu MinorMineral Concession Rules categorically states that thelease shall expire on the date specified in the leasedeed and in no case extension of the period of leaseshall be made. 8. In the case on hand, the appellant had quarriedfor the entire lease period of three years and thereaftersought for extension of lease for a period of 206 days onthe ground that she could not quarry for the said periodduring torrential rains and heavy floods. Admittedly,there is no specific provision under the lease agreementenabling the appellant to seek extension of lease periodto compensate the non-operating period nor a duty is caston the respondents either to consider the request of theappellant to extend the lease period or to compensate thenon-operative period, and in the absence of any suchprovision either in the lease agreement or under theRules, it may not be proper for this Court to interferewith the order of the learned Single Judge dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

20.8.2001 made in W.P.No.12489 of 2001.9. It is settled law that the word "extension"means a prolongation of the existing lease (ProvashChandra Dalui v. Biswanath Banerjee, AIR 1989 SC 1834).However, if the period of original lease is over, thereis no question of granting any extension. If suchextension is granted, it would amount to granting offresh lease after expiry of the original lease. 10. In the case on hand, the appellant havingaccepted the terms and conditions of the lease, couldnot have turned round the same so as to make out a caseon the basis of the pleadings referred to above seekingfurther extension of the originally fixed period oflease."In another unreported judgment of this Court in W.P.No.815 of 2001dated 22.03.2001, under similar circumstances, where the writpetition was filed seeking the relief of a mandamus directing theDistrict Collector, Madurai District to permit the petitioner toquarry and transport the mineral on payment of necessary senioragefee from quarry lands measuring 3.24.0 hec comprised in S.No.41/1situated in Kadaneri village, Periyar Taluk, Madurai District forthe full period of five years i.e. for further period of ninemonths and 14 days from 10.01.2001, the learned single Judge hasheld as follows:"The petitioner has also filed a civil suit inO.S.No.10 of 2000 against the Tamil Nadu Kal UdaipporSangam, Chatrapatti branch on the ground that the said"Sangam" trying to quarry in the suit property as ifthey are entitled to do so by causing loss to thepetitioner and also claiming huge wages. The petitioneris entitled to employ his own men. The suit propertybelongs to government. Moreover, the Revenue DivisionalOfficer, Usilampatti, has passed an order on 08.01.2000,in this regard. The petitioner has also an InterlocutoryApplication in I.A.No.41 of 2000 to implead therespondent herein as to the party to the proceedings.From the above said facts, which are culled out from thefiles it is very clear that there is a private disputebetween the petitioner and the quarry workers andbecause of that dispute, the petitioner might not havebeen quarried. But what remains to be seen is as towhether the respondent is responsible for the inabilitycaused to the petitioner to quarry. So far as the factsof the present case is concerned, as stated above,because of the dispute among the petitioner and hisquarry workers in respect of right to do the quarry worka dispute arose. Because of the dispute the petitionerclaims that he was not able to do the quarry work during https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the relevant period. The respondent is not at allresponsible for the hardship caused to the petitionerand as rightly contended by the respondent, it is thepetitioner own creation because he has not managed theaffairs of his quarry business so as to functionsmoothly. For the mismanagement of the petitioner of hisbusiness, he cannot blame the respondent, and on thatground sought for extension of a period or sought for adirection from this Court to direct the respondent toallow the petitioner to continue the quarry for whichperiod the quarry was not operated by him. There isabsolutely no provision in the act or in the Rules toextend the lease period even after the expiration. ThisCourt on the appropriate consideration of the facts hasgranted the relief to some of the lessee wherein thisCourt has found that the petitioners were not allowed toquarry or prevented from quarrying of the respondenttherein, the Government officials. In such circumstancesonly, this Court has directed the authorities to allowsuch of those lessees to quarry for the period for whichthey were prevented or not allowed to quarry."6. In view of the above said decisions, we are of the view thatthe respondent is not entitled for extension of lease and therefore,the learned single Judge is wrong in granting extension of timeand hence, the order of the learned single Judge is set aside. Thewrit appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, WAMP No.8037 of2004 is closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar raa To:The District Collector,Tirunelveli District,Tirunelveli.+1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 25725GB (CO)km/12.6.W.A No.4242 of 2004