JUDGMENT NATARAJAN, J.;- The State has preferred this appeal against the order of V. Ramaswami, J. in Writ Petition No.2667 of 1977 directing the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the proceedings of the first respondent in No. 17428/76 C dated 17.6.1977. The respondent who was a lessee of five acres and 17 cents of forest Sands in Thandikudi village, Madurai district sought a renewal of the lease for a further period from the appellants. On her being directed to pay renewal fees and renewal lease rent at the rate prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.1220 dated 7.11.3979, the respondent sought the quashing of the order of the first appellant by filing W.P.No.2667 of 1977. 2. To understand the case of the respondent, certain brief facts require to be mentioned. Originally, an area of 5.17 acres in Kallar Reserved Forest of Kodai-kanal range was leased out under cardamom lease No.79 to the respondent's mother one Karuppayee Ammal. The lease was to take effect from 3.4.1919 and it was to cover a period of 25 years. On the expiry of the original grant period, the lease was renewed for a period of ten years with effect from 1.4.1944. Again the lease was renewed for one year upto 31.3.1955. The grant was then transferred to the name of the respondent on her request and the respondent was granted a further renewal for a period of 20 years with effect from 1.4.1955. The period of grant expired on 31.3.1975. 3. By then, the Government had revised the policy of granting forest lands on lease for cardamom cultivation. The revised conditions were communicated to the respondent and she was asked whether she was willing to accept a renewal of the lease on the revised conditions. The revised conditions are as follows: 1. A grantee who required renewal of the lease has to pay a premium amounting to a sum worked out at the rate of Rs.3,000 per hectare in addition to renewal fee amounting to three years rent worked out at the rate of rent in force. 2. The grantee should be willing to pay the annual rent at the rate of Rs.100 per hectare with effect from 24.1.1976 i.e. the date of G.O.Ms.No.43 dated 24.1.1976. 3. The lease land should be in the possession of the grantee at the time of granting the renewal. 4. 2. The grantee should be willing to pay the annual rent at the rate of Rs.100 per hectare with effect from 24.1.1976 i.e. the date of G.O.Ms.No.43 dated 24.1.1976. 3. The lease land should be in the possession of the grantee at the time of granting the renewal. 4. The respondent expressed her willingness to accept the renewal of the lease in terms of the conditions imposed by the Government. She however sought permission to pay the premium in instalments. As the G.O. did not provide for payment of the premium in instalments, the first appellant replied that all the amounts payable by her should be paid within a period of 15 days. In spite of receiving the notice, the respondent did not pay the amount. It was at this stage of matters, the respondent sought the intervention of this court for quashing the order of the first appellant. 5. The learned single Judge has taken the view that as per the latest order of the Government viz., G.O.Ms.No.1220 dated 7.11.1979 any lessee who was in possession of the property after the lease had expired, is entiled to be granted a fresh lease for a period of 15 years as if it is a new lease without any conditions relating to payment of premium as the premium is intended only in a case of renewal. Consequently, the learned Judge held that the Government is bound to grant a fresh lease to the respondent herein without demanding any premium towards renewal. In so far as the respondent being in possession of a slightly larger extent than two hectares, the learned Judge held that G.O.Ms.No.1220 itself provides that such marginal excesses need not be taken into consideration when granting leases or renewal and as such the respondent will be entitled to the grant of a fresh lease for the extent of 5.17 acres in her possession. It is against this order of the learned Judge the State has preferred this appeal. 6. On a consideration of the matter, we find that the order of the learned single Judge is unsustainable. To point out the error in the order of the learned single Judge, the original policy of the Government and the revised policy in the matter of grant of lease of forest land have got to be set out. 6. On a consideration of the matter, we find that the order of the learned single Judge is unsustainable. To point out the error in the order of the learned single Judge, the original policy of the Government and the revised policy in the matter of grant of lease of forest land have got to be set out. Originally, the Government was leasing out forest lands to private individuals for cardamom cultivation. With a view to prevent concentration of forest lands in the hands of a few, the maximum extent of forest land that could be leased out to an individual was reduced from 50 acres to 25 acres in G.O.Ms.No.43, Forest and Fisheries dated 24.1.1966. Subsequently, on the representations made by the Cardamom Board and Cardamom Planters Association the Government re-examined the matter and issued further orders in G.O.Ms.No.1014, Forest and Fisheries dated 17.10.1977 by way of clarification on the period of lease, extent of land holding, second renewal of the lease, premium for renewals, lease rent and transfer of leasehold rights, etc, 7. Once again in the year 1979, the Government examined the policy which should govern the lease of forest lands for cardamom cultivation. As a result of the review, the Government passed another order G.O.Ms.No.84 dated 9.2.1979. Under this G.O. the Government directed that there should be no further renewal of the existing cardamom leases after the expiry of the lease period and that all the areas which had been leased out should be taken over by the Forest Department after the expiry of the lease period. As this G.O. affected the interests of the lessees who had not only invested huge amounts for developing the areas leased to them, but would also be throwing out of their means of livelihood, there were several representations to Government to reconsider the orders passed by them in G.O.Ms.No.84. The Government conceded the request of the representators and passed another G.O.Ms.Mo.1220 dated 7.11.1979 which is the relevant G.O. for the purpose of our consideration. Under this G.O. the Government gave up its policy to resume all the lands which had been leased out to various persons for raising cardamom cultivation. The Government conceded the request of the representators and passed another G.O.Ms.Mo.1220 dated 7.11.1979 which is the relevant G.O. for the purpose of our consideration. Under this G.O. the Government gave up its policy to resume all the lands which had been leased out to various persons for raising cardamom cultivation. Instead, the Government introduced a policy of granting lease for restricted periods, viz., an initial lease for a period of 15 years with a provision for one renewal for five years subject to the Government's option to concede the request for renewal. Thus, the policy of granting leases for indefinite periods and granting multiple renewals was given up. For equitable distribution of the forest lands among several needy members of the public, the Government restricted the extent of a cardamom lease to two hectares per individual. Therefore, the Government directed that any fresh lease should be confined to an extent of 2 hectares only and not more. But the Government also indicated that if any block of land exceeded the prescribed limit of two hectares by a marginal area, then relaxation can be given and the lease can be granted for the entire block in spite of the area exceeding two hectares by a few cents. Lastly, the Government prescribed the premium for renewal and renewal fee. The renewal premium of Rs.3,000 was increased to Rs.5,000 payable in three instalments and the renewal fee was fixed at three year's lease rent. The G.O. also prescribed the renewal lease rent which should be paid by the lessees depending upon the extent of the hectares leased out to them. 8. While imposing the condition that fresh lease should be granted only for an initial period of 15 years and with an optional period of renewal for another five years, the Government realised that there may be cases where the leases which had already been granted may still be in force. The G.O. therefore provided as to how those cases have to be dealt with. The order of the Government on this particular matter is in the following terms: “There may be cases where the lease is already in force according to earlier orders in excess of 15 years. The G.O. therefore provided as to how those cases have to be dealt with. The order of the Government on this particular matter is in the following terms: “There may be cases where the lease is already in force according to earlier orders in excess of 15 years. In all such cases, the lease will expire after the correct period is over and thereafter it will be treated as a fresh lease subject to the present conditions, for a period of 15 years only and subject to the eligibility of the persons concerned.” 9. The respondent's case will fail under this category because she had been granted a lease from 1.4.1955 to 31.3.1975. Even though the lease had expired, the respondent was in possession and hence she was asked by a communication dated 25.9.1976 whether she was willing to abide by the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.43 dated 24.1.1976. As the possession of the respondent is referable to the lease granted to her for a longer period than fifteen years, she can get a renewal of the lease if she pays the renewal premium and the renewal fees. But the renewal will however be treated as a fresh lease for a period of 15 years only as indicated by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1220. It is not open to the respondent to say that she should be granted a renewal without payment of renewal premium and renewal fee. Nor can she say that she should be treated as a fresh lessee and granted lease of the land for a period of 15 years because if it were to be a fresh lease, then the procedure laid down for granting fresh leases has to be followed. If it is the case of a fresh lease, then the authorities will have to consider the claim of all the applicants before the grant of the lease. It is therefore not open to the respondent to say that for the purpose of continuity the lease in her favour should be treated as a renewal, but when it comes to the question of payment of renewal premium and renewal fee, the renewal of the lease, should be treated as a fresh lease. The-directions contained in G.O.Ms.No.1220 which have been extracted above regarding cases where the lease was in force will only stand confined to the period of fifteen years. The-directions contained in G.O.Ms.No.1220 which have been extracted above regarding cases where the lease was in force will only stand confined to the period of fifteen years. Rut it will not affect the other conditions laid down regarding payment of renewal premium and renewal fees and also the renewal lease rent. The learned single Judge we may respectfully point out, was therefore not right in saying that according to G.O.Ms.No.1220 the respondent as a person in possession of the property, after the lease in her favour had expired, is entitled to be granted a fresh lease for a period of fifteen years as if it was a new lease without any obligation to pay the renewal premium and renewal fee and that such premium and fee is payable only in the case of renewal. The learned Judge has failed to see that as per the G.O, a renewal is to be treated as a fresh lease only for the limited purpose of restricting the period of lease. But in all other respects, the renewal will be governed by the terms set out in the G.O. 10. We find that in another batch of cases viz., W.P.No.6584 of 1980, etc., A.K. Thangadurai and others v. The District Forest Officer, Madurai South, Madurai and others, dated 27.7.1984 disposed of by another Bench of this Court consisting of Ramanujam and Ratnam, JJ. the correctness of the view taken by the learned single Judge in the Writ Petition under appeal came to be considered in a different context. After referring to the view taken by the learned single Judge in this writ petition, the Bench has observed as follows: “It is no doubt true that the said extract from the Government Order indicates wherever the leases granted according to the earlier orders had expired, the leases have to be treated as fresh leases for a period of fifteen years only subject to the eligibility of the persons concerned. But this is subject to the other conditions and the terms imposed in the said Government Order. Paragraph 4(b) of G.O.Ms. No. 1220, Forests and Fisheries, dated 7.11.1979 says that in future the extent of the cardamom lease will not exceed two hectares per individual. Therefore, any fresh lease can only be in respect of an extent not exceeding two hectares. Paragraph 4(b) of G.O.Ms. No. 1220, Forests and Fisheries, dated 7.11.1979 says that in future the extent of the cardamom lease will not exceed two hectares per individual. Therefore, any fresh lease can only be in respect of an extent not exceeding two hectares. Therefore, the said paragraph 4(a) in which the above condition occurs cannot be understood as enabling expiring leases being treated as fresh leases in respect of the entire extent originally leased. It is not, therefore, possible for us to accept the contention of the learned Counsel Mr. Sukuntharaj appearing for some of the petitioners that even without payment of the renewal fee and the requisite premium, fresh leases should be granted as per paragraph 4(a) of G.O.Ms.No.1220, Forests and Fisheries, dated 7.11.1979.” 11. We are thus fortified by the observations of the Division Bench in those batch of cases in the view we have taken in the writ appeal. We are therefore of the view that the respondent is not entitled to seek a renewal of the lease by way of a fresh lease under G.O.Ms.No. 1220 without payment of the premium for renewal and renewal fee as well as the renewal lease amount. 12. In the result, we allow the writ appeal, set aside the order of the learned single Judge and dismiss the writ petition filed by the respondent herein. There will, however, be no order as to costs in this appeal. Appeal allowed.