High CourtsSingle Bench

T.S. Srinath vs The District Collector

Madras High Court · Decided on 9 July 2013 · Citation: (2013) 07 MAD CK 0076

HON’BLE JUDGES
D. Hariparanthaman, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 18569 of 2013
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

33 paragraphs · 705 words

D. Hariparanthaman, J.—With the consent of both parties, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal, as the matter lies in narrow

compass. Heard both sides.

2.

The petitioner was granted lease by way of Lease Deed dated 13.8.2008 to quarry rough stone, jelly and sized stones in the premises in Survey

No. 136 (Part-3), in Venkatesapuram Village, Hosur Taluk. The lease was entered between the petitioner and the District Collector, Krishnagiri

for a period of 5 years from 13.8.2008 to 12.8.2013.

3.

Now the petitioner has made representations dated 19.4.2013 and 17.6.2013 to the respondent to grant the lease for a period of 10 years

instead of 5 years, as the quarry was a virgin one, as per Rule 8(8) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1959. It is the case of

the petitioner that as per the aforesaid Rule, the lease should have been for 10 years from 13.8.2008 to 12.8.2018.

4.

Since no order is passed, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking for a direction to grant lease for a period of 10 years commencing

from 13.8.2008 in accordance with Rule 8(8) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1959.

5.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Rule 8(8) of the aforesaid Rules and has sought for 10 years lease period commencing from

13.8.2008.

6.

On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader has submitted that the quarry is not a virgin one. Even if it is a virgin one, if both

parties entered into an agreement of lease for a period of 5 years, the same cannot be extended citing Rule 8(8) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals

Concession Rules. He has relied on the Full Bench judgment in C. Muthukrishnan Vs. District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli and

Another, in support of his contention.

7.

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

8.

As rightly contended by the learned Special Government Pleader, an identical issue was decided by the Full Bench judgment in C.

Muthukrishnan Vs. District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli and Another, . The Full Bench held that though Rule 8(8) provides for lease

period of 10 years in the case of virgin quarry, if the lease was entered for a period of 5 years with eyes open, the party cannot seek for extension

of 5 more years. The relevant passage found in paragraph No. 27 of the aforesaid judgment is extracted hereunder:

27.

...However, in respect of the lease granted based on the Notification issued by the District Collector after the amended Rule has come into

existence, the amended Rule no doubt confers a right of 10 years period, but subject to the period of lease mentioned in the Lease Deed. Even

though the participant has got a right to claim the period of 10 years, such right was available to him at the time of the Notification issued by the

District Collector under Rule 8(1) of the Rules and having failed to raise his objections with eyes wide open to the terms of the Notification which

restricted the period of lease to five years ever after the amendment, if a person participates in the tender process and being a highest bidder

executes voluntarily a Lease Deed for a lesser period, he cannot, as a matter of right, claim extension of lease upto the period of 10 years. Such

fixation of period, in our view, even though the amended Rule confers a right on the lessee in respect of virgin quarry, when once the District

Collector fixes lesser period which depends upon various circumstances and factors and the same is accepted by a party entering into a lease

agreement, the terms of the Lease Agreement are binding.

In this case, the lease was entered on 13.8.2008. The lease is for a period of five years from 13.8.2008 to 12.8.2013. At the time when the lease

has to expire, the petitioner seeks extension of lease for 5 more years. The same is not permissible, as per the judgment of the Full Bench referred

to above. Hence, the Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.