S. Sundaramahalingam vs The District Collector

P. Jyothimani, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate for the Respondent.

The District Collector has notified the land in S. No. 301/1A3 measuring to an extent of 2.00.0 hectares in Mannarkoil Village, Ambasamudram Taluk for quarrying stone for a period of five years from the date of execution of lease deed by way of tender cum auction which was given on 13.09.2005. The Petitioner has also participated in the auction. The auction was held on 06.10.2005 and the Petitioner was declared to be the highest bidder to the extent of Rs. 18,10,000/-. On the date of auction, he has paid 10% of the amount as required by law. The Respondent has a issued memo on 06.10.2005 directing the Petitioner to pay the balance amount of 90% on or before 13.10.2005. It is stated that the Petitioner has paid the balance amount of 90% on 13.10.2005. The Respondent in the proceedings, dated 25.10.2005 has issued an order permitting the Petitioner to quarry in the said Survey Number for a period of five years and also stated that as per the provision of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959, he must execute a lease deed. It is stated that the Petitioner hasalso furnished various documents including non judicialstamp papers for the execution of lease deed apart fromfurnishing security deposit in the form of national savings certificate. Before executing the lease deed, when the Petitioner has visited the site for the purpose of making arrangements for starting quarry operation, the local people have raised objection on the basis that it is agricultural field. It was in those circumstances, presuming that he will be unable to start the quarry operation, he has made a representation to the Respondent on 19.06.2006 for the refund of the amount already paid on the ground that he will be unable to start the quarrying operation because of the objection raised by the local people. In the proceedings of the District Collector, dated20.07.2006 by considering the said representation, the Collector has recognised that there has been certain objection by the agriculturists in the area and that agricultural operation will be affected if the lease is granted to start quarry operation in the said area.However, he has rejected the claim of the Petitioner for the refund of the amount which was already paid by him on the ground that there is No. provision under Rule 8 for the refund of the amount already paid by him. It was in those circumstances, the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition for a direction against the Collector to refund the lease amount of Rs. 18,10,000/-which was already paid by him and to return the security deposit which was given in the form of national savings certificate for Rs. 1,81,000/-and also to return the non judicial stamp papers given by the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-.

Pending the writ petition, he has also filed an application for interim injunction restraining the Respondent from proceeding further by forfeiting the lease amount of the Petitioner or compelling the Petitioner to execute a lease deed in respect of the stone quarry in S. No. 301/1A3 admeasuring 2.00.0 hectares in Mannar koil village in Ambasamudram Taluk and there has been an order of injunction as prayed for by the Petitioner and the injunction continues even as on date.

Mr. Sanjeevi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that even though the grant of quarry has been given by the Collector in favour of the Petitioner, lease deed has not been executed only due to the order of interim injunction passed by this Court. He would also submit tha the is now prepared to take up the quarrying site, if the lease deed is executed by the Collector and since all the formalities required under the Rules have been ful filled and he was unable to start quarry operation only due to the objection raised by the adjacent owners as admitted by the Respondent himself.

Rules 8 and 9 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 are as follows:

8.[The period of lease for quarrying stone in respect of the virgin areas, which have not been subjected to quarrying so far, shall be ten years. The period of lease for quarrying stone in respect of other areas shall be five years. The period of lease for quarrying sand and other minor minerals, other than the minerals covered under Rules 8-A and 8-C of the said rules, shall not exceed three years and shall not be less than one year and shall be subject to the following conditions, namely:

(i)The date of commencement of the period of lease granted under this rule shall be the date on which the lease deed is executed.

(ii)The lease shall expire on the date specified in the lease deed and in No. case extension of the period of lease shall be made].

No applicant shall commence any quarrying operation in any area without remitting the amounts required to be paid towards the lease and without executing the lease deed. If any quarrying is done without complying with the above conditions, it shall be treated as illicit quarrying.

The date of commencement of the period of lease is from the date of execution of lease deed. Therefore, the said Rule elicited above makes it abundantly clear that noone is entitled to carry on quarrying operation without execution of the lease deed and such act would amount to illicit quarrying. Admittedly, on the facts of the present case, even though required formalities have been completed including the grant of licence to the Petitioner but the lease deed has not been executed so far, since there has been an order of interim injunction in favour of the Petitioner and as per the provision of the Rule elicited above, there is No. commencement of period of lease.

Inasmuch as the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that he is prepared to approach the Collector for the purpose of execution of lease deed so as to give effect to the commencement of quarry operation as per the provisions of the Rules elicited above,necessarily, the Petitioner is not entitled for the relief claimed in this writ petition, since the Petitioner has asked for the refund of the amount already paid and there fore, learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach the Collector for the purpose of execution of lease deed.

Learned Government Advocate would submit that if the lease deed was already executed and the Petitioner is carrying on the quarry operation, the lease should be deemed to have commenced from the said date of operation,even if it is illicit in nature.

As per the provisions of the Rules elicited above,the quarrying operation has to be commenced only from the date of execution of lease deed. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would categorically submit that he has not commenced the quarrying operation. In these circum stances,permission to with draw the writ petition to approach the Collector for execution is granted.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the Petitioner to with draw the writ petition with liberty to approach the Collector by way of representation for execution of lease deed within a periodof two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of thisorder. On receipt of such representation, the District Collector shall pass appropriate orders for the purpose ofexecution of lease deed making it clear that if the Petitioner has already commenced quarrying operation, it is for him to consider the same while executing the lease deed. The District Collector shall consider there presentation and execute the lease deed, if there are no legal impediments, with in a period of four weeks from thedate of receipt of such representation. No. costs.Consequently, connected miscall aneous petition is closed.