Judgment :- W.P.No.4610/2001 is filed challenging G.O.Ms.No.242 Rev. dated 14.05.1999, revising rate of amount payable on Salt Pans, at Rs.135 per acre. 2. W.P.No.22200/2005 is filed challenging the notice issued to the Petitioner Pakben & Co., calling upon the Petitioner Company to pay the arrears of Rs.15,13,000/-, payable towards the Salt Tax. 3. Since same set of facts arise in both the Writ Petitions, they have been taken together and disposed of by this common Order. 4. Relevant facts in brief are as follows:- In Marakkanam Village, Villupuram District and adjoining villages, the Central Government as well as State Government own several thousands of acres of salt pans, which are periodically leased out to salt manufacturers. In consideration of the leases, Government secures lease rent per annum as well as royalty stipulated per metric tonne of salt manufactured, subject to minimum sum per acre/per annum. 5. G.O.Ms.No.208 Rev. dated 12.03.1993 has been issued in the year 1993, raising the lease rent from Rs.2/- to Rs.60/- and revising the rates as amount of Rs.445/-payable per acre per annum, as noted below Lease Rent per acre ... Rs.60/- Local Cess on lease amount ... Rs.60/- [at the rate of 100%] Local Cess Surcharge on lease amount ... Rs.300/- (500%) ... Rs.420/- Minimum royalty ... Rs.25/- Total Rs.445/- G.O.Ms.No.202 was challenged by means of Writ Petition No.20469/1993. 6. In consideration of representations of various salt manufacturers that salt rates fixed are high, the State Government revised the lease rent and minimum royalty relating to salt produced. As per G.O.Ms.No.242 Revenue Department dated 14.05.1999, total amount payable per acre/ per annum is Rs.135/-. G.O.Ms.No.242 dated 14.05.1999 reads as under:- "The Government have examined the suggestion of the special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration and Director of Industries and Commerce in greater detail and pass the following Order fixing uniform rate of lease rent and royalty on salt production. Lease Rent: Rs.5/- per acre per annum Royalty: Rs.2/- per metric tonne of salt produced subject to a minimum of Rs.100/-per acre per annum" As per the revised rates, lessee is to pay only Rs.135/- and benefited by Rs.310/-per acre per annum. G.O.Ms.No.242 is subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.4610/2001. 7. Contending that salt being an essential commodity for all sections of the Society, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that any decision of taxing salt, manufacturers must be visited with rationality. G.O.Ms.No.242 is subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.4610/2001. 7. Contending that salt being an essential commodity for all sections of the Society, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that any decision of taxing salt, manufacturers must be visited with rationality. It was further submitted that while the Central Government Salt Pan lessees are enjoying privilege, lessees who operate on State Government lands are discriminated, as they have to pay higher lease rent and royalty. It was further submitted that when Director of Industries and Commerce requested waiver of royalty without any rational basis, the Government has fixed minimum royalty of Rs.100/- per acre per annum. 8. Drawing the attention of the Court to the comparative levy, the learned Government Advocate has submitted that under G.O.Ms.No.242, lessee is benefitted with saving of Rs.310/- per acre and the lease rent now fixed is a reasonable one and the same cannot be challenged. 9. By objecting to the revised rates of Salt Pans, Petitioner challenges the policy of the Government in revising the lease amount and royalty. 10. The lease Rent of Rs.2/- per acre per annum, royalty per acre at Rs.25 total amount of Rs.27/- per acre per annum were earlier fixed through G.O.Ms.No.1076, Rev. dated 22.06.1982. As of right, the Petitioner cannot claim that the rates revised in 1982 has to be maintained all the time. 11. Salt is produced by preparing earth for salt crystallisation with traditional method of solar evaporation. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner contended that with more labour orientation involved, maximum production capacity per acre could never be more than two metric tonnes per acre and at present when the price of salt is at low rate, levying minimum royalty at Rs.100/-is highly excessive. It was further submitted that the salt industry has to face various problems like seasonal onslaught and absence of competitive marketing and low price of salt, which is an essential commodity. Only in consideration of the various factors and the problems faced by the Salt Industry, the Government has considerably reduced the amount from Rs.445/- to Rs.135/- per acre. Under the revised rates, lessee has to pay only Rs.135/- as against Rs.445/- per acre per annum, fixed under G.O.Ms.No.208. As rightly submitted by the learned Government Advocate, as per the revised rent, lessee is benefited by Rs.310/-per acre per annum. 12. Under the revised rates, lessee has to pay only Rs.135/- as against Rs.445/- per acre per annum, fixed under G.O.Ms.No.208. As rightly submitted by the learned Government Advocate, as per the revised rent, lessee is benefited by Rs.310/-per acre per annum. 12. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that for the Central Government salt pans, lease rent is only Rs.2/-per acre and the Central Government collects royalty at Re.1 per tonne, subject to a minimum of Rs.20/- per acre, while the impugned G.O. demands royalty of Rs.2/- per tonne subject to a minimum of Rs.100/-per tonne which is discriminatory. Absolutely no material has been produced showing the prevailing rates of salt pans belonging to the Central Government. Likewise, no material has been produced showing that production of Central Government Salt Pans have production capacity of nearly 20 metric tonnes per acre, but whereas the State Government Salt pans have production capacity of only 2 metric tonnes per acre at present. In the absence of any comparative data, the contention that State Government Salt Pan lessees are discriminated has no force. .13. As per the terms of the lease Agreement, Government is empowered to enhance the lease rent and royalty for manufacture of salt on Government lands at any time during the lease period. No concurrence of salt manufacturers is necessary for revising the rates. Wisdom and the economic activity of the State Government are not subject to judicial review, unless it is shown that levy of Rs.135/-per acre/ annum is in violation of statutory provisions or arbitrary. As per the terms of the lease Agreement, the Government has reserved the right to enhance the lease rent. Lessees have also given their consent at the time of grant of lease for revising the rate of lease rent and royalty. There is nothing to suggest that the revised rates are in violation of the statutory provisions or arbitrary in nature. .14. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition No.4610 of 2001 fails and is liable to be dismissed. .W.P.No.22200/2005:- 15. As per G.O.Ms.No.1487, Revenue (D1) Department dated 12.09.1989, Government lands to an extent of 499.87 acres in S.No.148 and 149 at Kandadu Village, Tindivanam Taluk were leased out to the Petitioners Company Packben & Co. for a period of 12 years. The lease period expired on 20.04.2002. The Petitioner was in arrears of dues of Rs.15,13,000/-. .W.P.No.22200/2005:- 15. As per G.O.Ms.No.1487, Revenue (D1) Department dated 12.09.1989, Government lands to an extent of 499.87 acres in S.No.148 and 149 at Kandadu Village, Tindivanam Taluk were leased out to the Petitioners Company Packben & Co. for a period of 12 years. The lease period expired on 20.04.2002. The Petitioner was in arrears of dues of Rs.15,13,000/-. The District Collector issued certificate under Section 13(1) of Revenue Recovery Act by initiating proceedings under Revenue Recovery Act. Tahsildar, Cuddalore has issued proceedings dated 03.05.2005, calling upon the Petitioner to remit the dues within a week and on failure, to initiate action under the Revenue Recovery Act, which is challenged in this Writ Petition. 16. Arrears of rent is claimed as per G.O.Ms.No.208 Revenue Department, dated 12.03.1993, as per which, an amount of Rs.445/-is payable per acre per annum. The Petitioner Company is liable to pay differential royalty at Rs.30 per acre and the local cess and local cess on lease amount, equal to lease amount of Rs.60/- per acre and Rs.300/- towards local cess, surcharge on lumpsum. The differential lease amount, local cess and local surcharge is calculated at Rs.13,65,500/-along with lease amount payable for Fasli 1409 to 1411, totalling amount Rs.15,13,000, is payable by the Petitioner. 17. There is no force in the contention that the Government cannot vary the terms of the lease during subsistence of lease Agreement. As per clause 7 of the lease Agreement, Government reserved right to enhance the rent during the period of lease. 18. Clause 7 reads as follows:- The Government reserves to themselves the right to enhance the rent, during the period of lease and the grant is liable to cancellation if the grantee is not agreeable to pay the enhanced rent when so required. .(i) This condition will also be applicable to grants of land in estates taken over by the Government under the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. .(ii) In the case of an existing grant, this condition can be imposed only at the time of renewal of the grant. If there is a provision in an existing grant that it should be renewed on the same time the condition for payment of enhanced (revised) rent will not affect it unless the grantee agreed to it at the time of renewal of grant. 19. If there is a provision in an existing grant that it should be renewed on the same time the condition for payment of enhanced (revised) rent will not affect it unless the grantee agreed to it at the time of renewal of grant. 19. Since Government has reserved the right to enhance rent, it is empowered to enhance the rent and the lessee cannot challenge the same. 20. Stress was laid upon clause (7) (ii) in support of the contention that Government can enhance rent only at the time of renewal of grant and not during the lease period. I am afraid that this contention is not in accordance with clause (7). Clause (7) is emphatic, empowering the Government to enhance the rent during the period of lease. Clause (7) (ii) applies only if there is a provision in an existing grant that it should be renewed on the same terms and conditions and the payment of enhanced rent will not affect it. In the lease Agreement of the Petitioner Company, there is no such clause for renewal of lease on the same terms and conditions. While so, the Petitioner cannot seek to invoke clause (7)(ii) and contend that the Government can enhance rent only at the time of renewal of grant and not otherwise. .21. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the unreported decision in W.P.No.6666/1997 [dated 110. 2003] in which G.O.Ms.No.208 dated 12.03.1993 was challenged, forbearing the Respondents from collecting enhanced rent from the Petitioner Company on the basis of the said G.O. While interpreting clause 7(ii), the learned Judge has observed that the enhancement made during the subsistence of lease Agreement is against sub-clause (ii) of Clause (7) of the lease Agreement and unsustainable. With due respect, Sub Clause (ii) of Clause (7) was not brought to the notice of the Court. Sub Clause (ii) i.e., "imposing enhancement of rent at the time of renewal of grant would arise only when there is a provision in the existing grant that it should be renewed on the same terms and conditions." In the absence of any such clause for renewal of lease Agreement on the same terms and conditions, the Petitioner cannot contend that there should be enhancement of lease rent only at the time of renewal of grant. .22. Any grant is subject to future executive action. .22. Any grant is subject to future executive action. This is all the more so, when under clause (7), Government has reserved to themselves the right to enhance rent during the period of lease. If the contention that there could be enhancement only at the time of renewal of grant, clause 7 would become otiose. Limitation:- 23. Under the impugned proceedings, the Petitioner Company has been called upon to pay the differential amount for Fasli 1402 to 1408 [1993-94 to 1999-2000] and the lease amount for fasli 1409 to 1411 [2000-01 to 2002-03]. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has strenuously contended that the claim is barred by limitation and the Government cannot seek to recover the time barred due by seeking recourse under the Revenue Recovery Act. In support of his contention that the proceedings are barred by limitation, the learned Counsel placed reliance upon AIR 1992 Kerala 1985 and 1999 (3) SCC 657 . Those cases relate to recovery of agricultural loans given by State Financial Corporation, recovery proceedings initiated under Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Kerala Act contains provision under Section 70(3), which enables a person who has paid under protest, to file a suit for refund of the amount wrongly recovered. In that context, the Supreme Court has observed as under:- "Under Section 70(3) a per son who has paid under protest can file a suit for refund o the amount wrongly recovered. In law he would be entitled to submit in the suit that the claim against which the recovery has been made is time barred. Hence no amount should have been recovered from him. When the right to file a suit under Section 70(3) is expressly preserved, there is necessary implication that the shield of limitation available to a debtor in a suit is also preserved. He cannot therefore, be deprived of this right simply by making a recovery under the said Act unless there is anything in the Act which expressly brings about such a result. Provisions of the said Act, however, indicate to the contrary. Moreover, such a wide interpretation of "amounts due" which destroys an important defence available to a debtor in a suit against him by the creditor, may attract Article 14 against the Act". 24. There is no such provision under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, excepting Section 59. Provisions of the said Act, however, indicate to the contrary. Moreover, such a wide interpretation of "amounts due" which destroys an important defence available to a debtor in a suit against him by the creditor, may attract Article 14 against the Act". 24. There is no such provision under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, excepting Section 59. Section 59 relates to suits filed by any person aggrieved by proceeding taken under Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act. Section 59 contemplates special period of limitation of six months for filing suits, aggrieved by the proceedings taken under Revenue Recovery Act. Section 58 of the Act prohibits Civil Court from taking into consideration or deciding any question as to the amount fixed. 25. Under Section 58 of the Act, when the Civil Courts jurisdiction is barred and when under Section 59 of the Revenue Recovery Act, statute stipulates period of limitation viz., six months, within which a suit should be filed, Limitation Act is not applicable to the proceedings under Revenue Recovery Act. The provisions under Section 29 of the Limitation Act are applicable only in respect of suits, appeals or applications filed before Court of law. There is no provision under Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act that the amount due under the Act shall be recovered through Court. Hence the provisions of Limitation Act are not applicable to the proceedings under Revenue Recovery Act. There is no merit in the contention that the impugned proceedings initiated under Revenue Recovery Act is barred by limitation. 26. In the impugned notice, the Petitioner Company was called upon to pay Rs.15,13,000/-. The split up figure is not given. Only in the counter affidavit, the details of split up figures of the details of the amount is shown viz., the differential lease amount, local cess and local cess surcharge, totalling Rs.13,65,500 and the lease amount of Rs.1,47,500/-, totalling Rs.15,13,000/-. Non furnishing of split up figure would not vitiate the proceedings. If really the Petitioner required split up figure, the Petitioner could have requested the authorities to furnish split up figures. But that was not done. .27. Amount of Rs.13,65,500/- has been claimed on the basis of differential lease amount, local cess and local surcharge thereon, on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.208 Revenue dated 12.03.1993. The said G.O. was challenged in W.P.No.20469/ 1993. But that was not done. .27. Amount of Rs.13,65,500/- has been claimed on the basis of differential lease amount, local cess and local surcharge thereon, on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.208 Revenue dated 12.03.1993. The said G.O. was challenged in W.P.No.20469/ 1993. In the meanwhile, considering that the levy of lease rent and cess are heavy, G.O.Ms.No.242 dated 15.04.1999, was passed. Even when the Government has felt that the levy in G.O.Ms.No.208 was heavy, in fairness, Government should levy the amount as per G.O.Ms.No.242 even from 1993 and the Government is not right in contending that G.O.Ms.No.242 Revenue Department dated 14.05.1999 is only prospective and not retrospective. .28. In the result, W.P.No.22200/2005 fails and the same is dismissed with the following directions:- .The Respondents are directed to issue fresh demand notice, calculating the differential lease rent and royalty and other amount payable on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.242 dated 14.05.1999, giving retrospective effect from 12.03.1993. 29. In the result, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, WPMP No.24199/2005 is also dismissed.