Judgment : The petitioner has sought for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the orders of the first and second respondents, relating to their proceedings in Roc. 16412/MM5/1998, dated 30.1.2001 and Rc.No.1442/Q.1/96, dated 10. 1998 respectively and to direct the second respondent to measure and demarcate his leasehold area, as was shown to him before the auction, after giving him an opportunity of personal hearing and also direct the second respondent to allow him to quarry in the leasehold area for the full block period of five years from the date on which, the second respondent allows him to be re-commence quarrying in the said lands by compensating the loss of period from 4. 1996 to 11. 1996 and the loss of period due to the lease cancellation order of the second respondent. .2. Facts leading to the writ petition are as follows: .Stone quarry comprised in Survey No.49, in Poondi Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, divided into two bits as Quarry No.1 and Quarry No.2, over an extent of 3 and 14. 5 Hectares respectively, were brought for tender-cum-auction on 210. 1996. The petitioner has participated in the said auction and was declared as successful bidder for Rs.7,00,000/-, in respect of stone quarry No.2. After remittance of bid amount and other charges, a lease deed was executed in favour of the petitioner for a period of five years, ending on 33. 2001. Similarly, Stone Quarry No.1 was granted on lease to Thiru. Mahendran for Rs.2,40,000/-. It is the case of the petitioner that the authorities have failed to measure and demarcate the area in respect of quarry Nos.1 and 2, prior to public auction. The demarcated map and the draft lease deed with respect to quarry No.2 were not enclosed along with the confirmation order of the second respondent, dated 11. 1996. Even the Deputy Tahsildar has signed the necessary sketch only on 111. 1996, after the execution of the lease deed, dated 11. 1996. 3. The petitioner was shocked to see that as per the sketch, attached to the lease deed, the area allotted to him was a barren area and deposit of stone was available only in 20 cents. Whereas, the lessee in Quarry No.1 was permitted to quarry in a rocky area. The petitioner has represented the above discrepancy to the authorities and the District Collector, vide his letter, dated 112. Whereas, the lessee in Quarry No.1 was permitted to quarry in a rocky area. The petitioner has represented the above discrepancy to the authorities and the District Collector, vide his letter, dated 112. 1996, directed the Tahsildar, Chengalpattu to demarcate the area with proper boundaries, so as to enable the lessees to carry on quarrying operations in their respective quarries. After repeated requests, the Tahsildar, Chengalpattu, responded to the directions of the Collector, dated 112. 1996 and on 2. 1997, the area was measured and demarcated by the concerned Surveyor to the dismay of the petitioner. Since the area allotted to the petitioner, as per the sketch submitted to the Sub Registrar along with the lease deed for registration, was different from the area shown to him by the Mines Department prior to the auction, he submitted a representation, dated 12. 1997 to the District Collector to demarcate the area correctly in the presence of some responsible officer and allot the area properly. Inspite of repeated requests, no action was taken and therefore, the petitioner was forced to quarry in a limited area of 20 Cents, out of the total extent of 14. 5 Hectares leased out to him. 4. The petitioner has further submitted that as megre deposits of stone were found in the limited area of 20 Cents in Quarry No.2 allotted by the officials, he was constrained to dig earth in the adjacent area, allotted to him. But, the lessee of Quarry No.1 with his men, forcibly obstructed the petitioners workers from doing the work, stating that the said area is required for him as pathway to transport his quarried stones. This fact was also informed to the District Collector and there was no action. It is the case of the petitioner that it is highly irregular and improper on the part of the officials, as they have failed to mention the boundaries on four sides of the leasehold area, even though there is a specific provision in the lease deed. However, without resolving the dispute with regard to the division of leasehold area and without passing any orders on the representations referred to above, the District Collector, Kancheepuram District, has issued a notice, dated 3. 1997, for remittance of second years lease amount. Though the above said position was informed by the petitioner to the District Collector, through reminders, dated 20.5.1997 and 8. 1997, for remittance of second years lease amount. Though the above said position was informed by the petitioner to the District Collector, through reminders, dated 20.5.1997 and 8. 1997, he has issued a show cause notice, dated 11. 1997, for cancellation of the lease, alleging that the petitioner has failed to pay the second years lease amount on the pretext, that the area was not measured and demarcated. In the said show cause notice, the District Collector has referred to a letter of the Tahsildar, dated 25. 1997, wherein the Tahsildar has stated that the area was measured and demarcated. In the presence of both the lessees. 5. The petitioner has further submitted that in response to the said show cause notice, he submitted a reply, dated 111. 1997 to the Collector for suitable action. Without resolving the dispute, the Collector, in his second show cause notice, dated 28. 1998, again directed the petitioner to pay the second and third years lease amounts and threatened to cancel the lease amounts and threatened to cancel the lease and forfeit the security deposit, if the petitioner fails to pay the lease amounts. The petitioner also submitted a detailed reply on 38. 1998. However, without considering the facts and without passing any order on the dispute raised by the petitioner, the District Collector, in his proceedings dated 10. 1998, has arbitrarily cancelled the petitioners lease. Against which, the petitioners lease. Against which, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Director of Geology and Mines, Chennai, the first respondent herein and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the orders of respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition. 6. The respondents in their counter affidavit have submitted that the petitioner was granted quarry lease in respect of rough stone jelly etc., to an extent of 14. 5 Hectares in Survey No.49(No.2) of Poondi Village for the period from 11. 1996 to 33. 2001 for the first years lease amount of Rs.7,00,000/-. Since the petitioner failed to remit the tease amount for the second and third year of the lease period from 4. 1997 to 33. 1998 and from 4. 1998 to 33. 1999 respectively, he was issued with show cause notice, as to why the tease should not be cancelled for non-payment of the lease amount. Since the petitioner failed to remit the tease amount for the second and third year of the lease period from 4. 1997 to 33. 1998 and from 4. 1998 to 33. 1999 respectively, he was issued with show cause notice, as to why the tease should not be cancelled for non-payment of the lease amount. The petitioner submitted his explanation, stating that the area was not furnished to him; But the Tahsildar, Chengalpattu in his statement has clearly stated that the area was properly measured and demarcated in the presence of the lessees. Further, a copy of the sketch, showing Quarry Nos.1 and 2 was already displayed in the office Notice Board before the sale took place. A copy of the sketch was also furnished to the petitioner on 111. 1996. However, the petitioner, without making payment of lease amount for the second and third years, has been repeatedly stating that the area was not properly measured and on that pretext, evaded payment. Therefore, for nonpayment, the lease granted to the petitioner was cancelled by the District Collector, in his proceedings dated 10. 1998. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Director of Geology and Mining, Chennai, first respondent and said appeal was dismissed on 30.1.2001. 7. The respondents have further submitted that the Tahsildar in his report, dated 25. 1997, has categorically reported that he had measured the area and demarcated the same in the presence of lessees, Tvl. R. Mahendran and the petitioner and a copy of the sketch was also furnished along with the lease deed to the petitioner. The alleged delay in signing the sketch by the Deputy Tahsildar on 111. 1996, cannot be taken into cognizance; since the lease deed had already been executed on 11. 1996, after satisfying with the area to be leased out in public auction. The area was made available for inspection by the intending bidders even before the sale took place. .8. The alleged delay in signing the sketch by the Deputy Tahsildar on 111. 1996, cannot be taken into cognizance; since the lease deed had already been executed on 11. 1996, after satisfying with the area to be leased out in public auction. The area was made available for inspection by the intending bidders even before the sale took place. .8. The respondents have denied the contention of the petitioner that he was forced to quarry in a limited area of about 20 cents and further submitted that the area obtained by the petitioner through tender cum auction, was already shown to him, before the sale took place and having-accepted the availability of the stone deposits in the site allotted to him, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that he was forced to quarry in a limited area of about 20 cents. Further, as per the lease deed, the boundaries of the area were also shown to him. It is further submitted that the repeated representations of the petitioner on the flimsy ground, would go to show that he was certainly evading payment. Further, there is no discrepancy in the sketch already notified and furnished to the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity by issuing show notices, dated 3. 1997 and 28. 1998, before cancellation of the lease and therefore, there is no violation of the principles of natural justice. For the above said reasons, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. The submissions of Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner are as follows: .(i) The appellate authority has failed to note that the second respondent has cancelled the lease of the petitioner, without giving an opportunity of personal hearing and therefore, there is a violation of Rule 36(5)(H) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. .(ii) The appellate authority has also failed to consider that the sketch pertaining to the Survey No.49 was furnished only on 111. 1996. (iii) Both the District Collector and the appellate authority have not considered the genuine grievance of the petitioner that the disputed area was measured by the surveyor only on 2. 1997, on the instructions or the Tahsildar, Chengalpattu and not before the date of execution of the lease deed. 1996. (iii) Both the District Collector and the appellate authority have not considered the genuine grievance of the petitioner that the disputed area was measured by the surveyor only on 2. 1997, on the instructions or the Tahsildar, Chengalpattu and not before the date of execution of the lease deed. On receipt of the challan for payment of the balance amount, the District Collector ought to have sent a copy of the draft lease deed, as in form of Appendix-I to the Rules, along with the copy of the sketch of the surveyed and demarcated area. (iv) When the petitioner had specifically brought to the notice of the District Collector that the draft lease deed and the map of the area, to be leased out, were not enclosed with the District Collectors confirmation order dated 11. 1997, which is a requirement as per Rule 8(5)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, the said authority ought to have considered the objection in proper prospective and mere recording a statement by the appellate authority that the report of the Tahsildar cannot be ignored, amounts to failure to exercise their jurisdiction. .(v) The leased out area of two stone quarries in Survey no.49 viz., Stone Quarries 1 and 2 were measured and demarcated, only after the grant of lease, i.e. after the petitioner made a complaint to the District Collector about the favouritism shown by the Officials to the lessee of Quarry No.1. .(vi) Neither the District Collector nor the Appellate Authority, had taken it seriously and failed to consider whether the Tahsildar had measured and demarcated the area in the presence of the parties, prior to execution of the lease deed. They have failed to advert to the dispute regarding Improper and invalid demarcation of the area. (vii) The officials had shown a rough sketch, indicating the division of hilly and rocky areas almost equally divided for Quarry Nos.1 and 2 and the petitioner was made to believe that the quarry areas 1 and 2 were equally divided and on that legitimate expectation, he had invested huge amount in the tender. (viii) With a closed mind, the appellate authority has erroneously and arbitrarily concluded that the petitioner should have satisfied himself about the availability of the stones in the area and participated in the tender cum auction. (viii) With a closed mind, the appellate authority has erroneously and arbitrarily concluded that the petitioner should have satisfied himself about the availability of the stones in the area and participated in the tender cum auction. .(ix) The conclusion of the appellate authority that the petitioner wanted to evade payment of lease amount, for which, he had taken the tool of survey and demarcation of the area, reveals the closed mind of the appellate authority. When the petitioner had invested huge money to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/-per annum as tease amount for Quarry No.2, naturally, he would like to excavate stones in the area earmarked to him under the lease. (x) When improper demarcation of the area and violation committed by the authorities were pointed out, it is the duty of the appellate authority to examine the grievance as to whether the officials have failed to furnish draft lease deed and the draft map of the area, before execution of the lease deed. On the contrary, the appellate authority has merely reproduced the remarks of the District Collector and passed the impugned order causing serious prejudice to the case of the petitioner. .(xi) The respondents have failed to furnish the draft lease deed and the map along with the confirmation order, dated 11. 1996 and surreptitiously enclosed an unsigned map of the area only on 111. 1996. When a dispute was raised as per the Condition No.8(d) of the Lease Deed about the absence of recording the boundaries of the lease hold area, to the schedule to the property leased out, it is the bounden duty of the respondents to address themselves to the objections and ought to have rectified their mistake by conducting a detailed enquiry, by giving an opportunity of personal heating to the petitioner. (xii) The observations of the appellate authority that the Tahsildar had measured the disputed area is factually incorrect and it was only the surveyor who had done the work of demarcation. 10. The total period of lease fixed and notified in the District Gazettee was for five years. Due to the dispute, the petitioner could not quarry, for the period from 4. 1996 to 11. 1996 and sustained severe loss. Therefore, he prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and be permitted to continue to quarry as per the lease deed. 11. Reiterating the averments made in the Vacate Stay Petition, Mr. Due to the dispute, the petitioner could not quarry, for the period from 4. 1996 to 11. 1996 and sustained severe loss. Therefore, he prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and be permitted to continue to quarry as per the lease deed. 11. Reiterating the averments made in the Vacate Stay Petition, Mr. A. Arumugam, learned Additional Government submitted that the area was properly measured and demarcated in the presence of two lessees (Tvl. R. Mahendran and the petitioner). He further submitted that the area in Survey No.49 was divided into two portions and that the petitioner was fully satisfied with the demarcated area before participating in the tender cum auction. He further submitted that the areas of Quarry Nos.1 and 2 have been clearly indicated in the Gazettee Notification before the public auction was invited. He has also denied the contention of the petitioner that sketch was tampered with to show favouritism to the other lease holder. He further submitted that the copy of the sketch was also handed over to the petitioner on 111. 1996. 12. Referring to Clause 5(2)(a) in the lease deed, dated 11. 1996, learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that under the lease conditions, the petitioner is obliged to pay the lease amount for every year on or before 15 day of March in advance with escalation of 20% of previous years lease amount for the succeeding year without fall. 13. Learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that if the petitioner was really aggrieved about non-furnishing of the sketch and demarcation of the area, as notified in the office Notice Board, he could have very well terminated the lease, either whole or in part of the premises by issuing six months notice in writing. Admittedly, the petitioner has failed to exercise the option to terminate the lease deed, but taken up the defence of non-furnishing the draft lease deed, so as to avoid his contractual obligations under Clause 5(2)(a) of the lease deed to pay the yearly lease amount. He further submitted that the petitioner has been provided with sufficient opportunity to put forth his case and therefore, there is no violation of the principles of natural justice. 14. He further submitted that the petitioner has been provided with sufficient opportunity to put forth his case and therefore, there is no violation of the principles of natural justice. 14. Learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that as the petitioner has failed to pay the lease amount for the above said quarry, for the second and third lease years, show cause notices, dated 3. 1997 and 28. 1998 were issued to the petitioner calling upon him to explain as to why the lease should not be cancelled and for deducting the amount already remitted. The explanation of the petitioner was considered with reference to the records and a detailed order was passed by the District Collector, Kancheepuram, on 10. 1988, cancelling the lease. He further submitted that the appellate authority, while examining the statutory appeal, found that demarcation was made in the presence of both the lessees and taking into consideration the report of the Tahsildar, has categorically held that the petitioner, with an intention to evade payment of lease amount for the succeeding years, had taken up a false ground of not surveying the leasehold area before execution of the lease. 15. Learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that as against the order of the appellate authority, a Second Appeal is provided under the Tamil Nadu Minor Miners Concession Rules. As the question whether the measurement was taken prior to the gazette notification and display in the Office Notice Board, being a matter of fact, cannot be agitated in Writ Petition and therefore, for the reasons stated supra, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 16. Before adverting to the facts of this case, it is relevant to have a cursory look at some of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1959. Rule 8 of the said Rules deals with leasing of lands for quarrying minor minerals other than the minerals covered under rules 8-A and 8-C of these rules. As per the Rule, the District Collector shall publish a notice in the District Gazette, inviting tender applications in sealed cover for grant of lease of areas for quarrying minor minerals other than the minerals covered under Rule 8-A and 8-C of these rules. Rule 8-A deals with the lease of quarries to private persons in respect of granite. As per the Rule, the District Collector shall publish a notice in the District Gazette, inviting tender applications in sealed cover for grant of lease of areas for quarrying minor minerals other than the minerals covered under Rule 8-A and 8-C of these rules. Rule 8-A deals with the lease of quarries to private persons in respect of granite. Rule 8-C deals with the quarrying of granite by the State Government and granting of lease to a State Government Company or Corporation. Rules 8-A and 8-C are not relevant for the purpose of the case. The District Collector shall give further publicity to the invitation of tender applications. Every notice and advertisement published under Clauses (a) and Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. (b) shall inter alia specify (I) Survey number, extent, village and Taluk of the area offered for lease and the name of the mineral allowed for quarrying in the area; (ii) last date and time for receipt of tender applications. There shall be at least fifteen clear days between the date of publication of the notice in the District Gazette and the last date for receipt of the tender applications. 17. As per Rule 8(3), every tender application made for grant of a quarrying tease shall be accompanied by a demand draft for the total amount, which is equivalent to Rs.25,000/- payable towards Earnest Money Deposit and 10% of the tendered amount being the advance deposit (towards adjustment for initial payment if the tender applicant is eventually declared as successful person to obtain the lease subject to the other conditions laid down in this rule. As per Rule 8(5)(a)(ii), all persons who have made applications for participating in the auction and the tender offering shall be present during the entire auction-cum-tender proceedings so as to know as to who is declared as the successful person eligible to obtain the lease of the area and to make 10% of the bid or tender amount as initial payment immediately after the declaration made by the District Collector. 18. As per Rule 8(5)(b)(vi), after the name of the successful bidder or tenderer, as the case may be, is declared by the District Collector, such person shall pay 10% of the bid amount or tender amount, as the case may be immediately. 18. As per Rule 8(5)(b)(vi), after the name of the successful bidder or tenderer, as the case may be, is declared by the District Collector, such person shall pay 10% of the bid amount or tender amount, as the case may be immediately. If he fails to pay the 10% of such amount immediately, he shall lose his bid or tender, as the case may be, and his earnest money deposit shall forfeited to the Government. As per Rule 8(5)(b)(vii), the remaining 90% of the tendered amount or bid amount, deducting the earnest money deposit already made, shall be paid within a weeks time thereafter. If the balance amount is not paid within the above stipulated time, 10% amount already paid immediately after the auction or tender opening along with the earnest money deposit shall be forfeited to the Government. 19. Clauses 6(e) to (f) of Rule 8 read as follows: "(c) On receipt of the original challan for payment of the balance 90% of the bid amount or tendered amount from the successful bidder or tendered, the order of the District Collector granting the lease in favour of the said person shall be communicated to him accompanied with (I) a copy of the draft lease deed as in the Form in Appendix I to these rules; and (II) a map of the surveyed and demarcated are granted on lease to him. On receipt of the above order of the Collector, the grantee of the lease shall produce with the stipulated time (I) the original challan for remittance of the balance amount indicated in the order of the District Collector towards security deposit which is payable at 10% of the tease amount or five thousand rupees whichever is greater; (II) the draft lease deed; (III) the map of the area granted on lease with the signature of the applicant; and (IV) required stamp papers for preparing the original lease deed .(d) The District Collector is empowered to make additions or modifications or deletions to the extent necessary in the lease deed in the Form in Appendix I to these rules. .(e) The lease deed shall be executed by the applicant on the appointed day and time with a map of the demarcated leased out area appended to it. .(e) The lease deed shall be executed by the applicant on the appointed day and time with a map of the demarcated leased out area appended to it. .(f) No lessee is entitled to raise any dispute with reference to survey and demarcation of the area leased out to him after execution of the lease deed". 20. Coming to the facts of this case, in respect of Quarries 1 and 2 in Survey No.49 of Poondi Village, Saidapet Taluk, Kancheepuram District, there was a Gazette Notification and an advertisement was given in the Newspaper on 110. 1996. In the tender cum public auction conducted under Sub Rule 1 of Rule 8 of the Tamil Minor Mineral Concession Rules, the petitioner was declared as the successful bidder for grant of quarrying rights, for rough stone over an extent of 14. 5 Hectares in Survey No.49 of Poondi Village, Chengalpet Taluk (Quarry No.2). The highest bid offered by the petitioner was accepted and by virtue of the powers under Clause (b) of Sub Rule 6 to Rule 8 of the above said rules, the District Collector, Kancheepuram by his notice, dated 11. 1996, informed the petitioner that he should remit the balance amount of Rs.6,81,000/- after adjusting Earnest Money Deposit remitted by him for one year, viz., Rs.50,000/-, besides other amount within 10 days from the date of receipt of the above said notice. The petitioner was further instructed to produce non-Judicial stamp papers for the value of Rs.53,920/- for preparation of the original lease deed to be signed between the lessor and the petitioner, highest bidder. The petitioner was also informed that he is not entitled to raise any dispute about the survey and demarcation of the area leased out to him after the execution of the lease deed. The District Collector, Kancheepuram in the above notice has also intimated that the order granting lease would be cancelled, if the highest bidder does not comply with the above conditions within 10 days from the date of receipt of the said notice and the Earnest Money Deposit amount remitted by him would be forfeited to the Government without, any further notice, directing him to remit the remaining 90% of the lease amount and production of the non-judicial stamp papers for preparation of the original lease deed, the petitioner has produced the same and a lease deed was also executed on 11. 1996, for quarrying rough stones and jelly. 21. Perusal of the sketch annexed in Page 61 of the typed set of papers shows that Thiru. R. Veiazhalan has prepared a Field Sketch on 30.12.1995, i.e. before the date of tender cum auction held on 210. 1996 and it bears the signature of the Special Deputy Tahsildar, Kancheepuram on 111. 1996. In proceedings in R.C.No.1442/41/96, dated 112. 1996, the Collector, Anna District, Kancheepuram, has directed the Tahsildar, Chengalpattu, to demarcate the area with proper boundaries. It is not in dispute that the area was surveyed on 2. 1987 in the presence of, both the lessees and that the report was also sent to the District Collector. Aggrieved over the measurement, the petitioner has made objections on 12. 1997, stating that the measurements have not been taken properly. 22. In order to examine the validity of the depute regarding survey and demarcation of the site, it is relevant to consider the matter from: the stage of the Gazette Notification till the date of execution of the lease deed. Clause 6 of the tender notification dated 10. 1996 states that no lessee is entitled to raise any dispute with reference to survey and demarcation of the area leased out to him, after the execution of the lease deed. Therefore, at the threshold itself, there is a clear indication that the lessee has no legal right to raise any dispute after the execution of lease. Whenever, an area is notified in the Government Gazettee and advertisement is given proposing to lease quarrying rights, the details of the same are displayed in the Office Notice Board. An opportunity is given to the intending bidders to ascertain the extent of the area, location, potentially of the mineral, and demarcation of the area proposed to be auctioned. It is for the intending bidders to verify themselves with reference to the specific measurements of the area demarcated and displayed in the Notice Board. Thereafter, when they participate in the tender cum auction. It has be presumed that the intending bidders have satisfied themselves about the extent of area demarcated for the purpose of quarrying. In the ease on hand, when the petitioner was declared as highest bidder for the above said quarry, by offering a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-per annum, by notice dated 11. Thereafter, when they participate in the tender cum auction. It has be presumed that the intending bidders have satisfied themselves about the extent of area demarcated for the purpose of quarrying. In the ease on hand, when the petitioner was declared as highest bidder for the above said quarry, by offering a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-per annum, by notice dated 11. 1996 of the Collector, he was informed to remit the balance amount of Rs.6,80,000/- (after adjusting Earnest Money Deposit, remitted by him) for one year + a sum of Rs.250/- as area assessment and 10% of the lease amount as security Deposit, i.e. Rs.70,000/- within 10 days from the date of receipt of the notice. He was also directed to produce the non-judicial stamp papers for the value of Rs.53,920/-for preparing the original lease deed to be signed by the lessor and the highest bidder as lessee. Perusal of this notice dated 11. 1996 also shows that the petitioner was clearly informed not to raise any dispute about survey and demarcation of the area leased out to him, after the execution of tease deed. 23. Even-though the petitioner had contended that the map or the sketch, pertaining to the notified area was given only after the execution of the lease deed, i.e., on 111. 1996, it is evident from the lease deed that even as early as on 11. 1996, the petitioner had consented for the execution of the lease deed and it could be reasonably inferred that he was fully satisfied with the terms and conditions of the draft lease deed in the form of Appendix I of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules and the demarcation made by the authorities. 24. As per Condition No.5(2)(a), the lease amount to be paid for every year on or before 15 Day of March in advance with escalation of 20% of the previous years lease amount of the succeeding years lease amount. The lease amount for the first year is as follows: .(I) First year balance lease amount Rs. 6,80,000/- remitted in Ch No.219 Sub-Treasury, Kancheepuram, Dt.11. 1996 .(II) E.M.D., Deposit Rs. 20,000/- Towards Demand Drafts SBI, Thiruvallur & Meyyur Total First Years lease amount Rs. 7,00,000/- (III) Area Assessment Rs. 250 Ch. No.221 Sub-Treasury, Kancheepuram, Dt.11. 1996. 25. The lease amount for the first year is as follows: .(I) First year balance lease amount Rs. 6,80,000/- remitted in Ch No.219 Sub-Treasury, Kancheepuram, Dt.11. 1996 .(II) E.M.D., Deposit Rs. 20,000/- Towards Demand Drafts SBI, Thiruvallur & Meyyur Total First Years lease amount Rs. 7,00,000/- (III) Area Assessment Rs. 250 Ch. No.221 Sub-Treasury, Kancheepuram, Dt.11. 1996. 25. AS per Clause 6 of the lease deed the lessee shall pay the assessment, cess and lease amount on the days and in the manner aforesaid. Clause 6(5) of the lease deed states that the lessee has to effectually fence off the demised pieces or land from the adjoining lands and to keep the fences in good repairs and condition and further to carry on quarrying in a skilful, systematic manner keeping in the view the proper safety of labourers, conservation of minerals and preservation of environment and ecology. 26. Admittedly, the lease deed was signed on 11. 1996. As per Rule 8(8)(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. As per Rule 8(6)(c), it is obligatory on the part of the District Collector to communicate the highest bidder a copy of the draft lease deed and the map of the survey and demarcated area granted on lease to him. On receipt of the above order of the Collector, the grantee of the lease shall produce within the stipulated time, (i) the original challan for remittance of the balance amount indicated in the order of the District Collector towards security deposit which is payable at 10% of the lease amount or five thousand rupees whichever is greater; (ii) the draft lease deed; (iii) the map of the area granted on lease with the signature of the applicant; and (iv) required stamp papers for preparing the original lease deed. 27. 27. As per Rule 8(7) of the Rules, if the intending bidder falls to produce the original challan for remittance of the amounts specified in the lease granting order or falls to produce the signed copy of the demarcated map of the area or falls to produce the stamp papers for preparing the lease deed or falls to execute the lease deed within the stipulated time the District Collector may cancel the order granting the lease to the defaulter and forfeit the earnest money deposit and all amounts paid by him to the State Government. If there was any dispute with regard to the non-furnishing of the sketch, or map of the surveyed and demarcated area, the petitioner should have insisted the authorities to furnish the above said document before offering his consent for execution of the lease deed. He had ten clear days for generating the funds and also to verify the extent of area notified in the gazettee and displayed in the notice board. If the petitioner had any grievance with regard to the demarcation of the area, he should have brought to the notice of the authorities then and there and refused to execute the lease deed. 28. Right from the stage of notification till the lease deed is executed, at every stage, the authorities in categorical terms have stated that the lessee is not entitled to raise any dispute with regard to the survey and demarcation of the area leased out to him, after the execution of the lease deed. 29. Clause 8(d), which has been pressed into service in respect of the contention of the learned senior counsel that the authorities have failed to consider the dispute over the survey and demarcation of the area, reads as follows, "Any question or dispute raise regarding the agreement executed in pursuance of "the rules" or any matter or thing connected therewith or the powers of the registered holders thereunder, the amount of payment of the lease amount or area assessment or dead rent made payable thereby, the matter in issue shall be decided by the District Collector, Anna District". 30. 30. If the dispute with regard to the survey and demarcation of the area was to be considered as one of the disputes to be adjudicated by the District Collector, as per the terms and conditions of the lease deed, as contended by the petitioner, then there would be a negation of the statutory provisions of sub-Rule 6(c) & (f) of Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, which expressly prohibits the lease holder from raising any dispute with regard to survey and demarcation of the area leased out to him, after the execution of the lease hold area. Further, as stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the authorities at various stages of grant of tease, have imposed a specific condition, in consonance with the statutory restriction that the tease holder has no right to raise such dispute, after the execution of the lease deed. Inclusion of another condition in the lease deed, that immediately after the execution of the lease deed, the lessee has to effectively fence off the demised premises or land from the adjoining lands and to keep the fence in good repairs and condition, also supports the statutory restriction placed on the lease. 31. It is a well settled principle, while considering the terms and conditions of an agreement, there should be a harmonious construction of the statutory rules with the terms and conditions of the lease deed, to avoid anomaly. A conjoint reading of the statutory rules, particularly Rule 8(6)(f) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 and Condition No.8(d), makes it clear that the rule making authorities have made a clear distinction with regard to the nature of questions or disputes that can be raised before the District Collector pertaining to the agreement executed in pursuance of "the rules" or any matter or thing connected therewith or the powers of the registered holders thereunder, the amount of payment of the lease amount or area assessment or dead rent made payable thereby, does not include the dispute regarding the survey and demarcation of the area. Statutory rules clearly exclude such disputes from the jurisdiction of the Collector or any other authority under the rules. 32. The intention of the rule making authority is explicit in excluding the dispute with regard to survey and demarcation of the area. Statutory rules clearly exclude such disputes from the jurisdiction of the Collector or any other authority under the rules. 32. The intention of the rule making authority is explicit in excluding the dispute with regard to survey and demarcation of the area. Therefore, the District Collector or Director of Geology and Mining has no authority to deal with the same, as they are bound to decide only the questions or disputes with reference to the matters enumerated in Rule 8(8)(A) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules. In view of the above, this Court of the considered opinion that having submitted a tender application, without raising any dispute about the demarcated area, acquiesced himself to the specific conditions imposed in the statutory rules, gazettee notification and the memo, dated 11. 1996 of the District Collector, that the lessee should not raise any dispute over the survey and demarcation of the area leased out to him and having executed the lease deed on his free will and accord, knowing fully well the terms and conditions of the lease, it is not open to the petitioner to turn around and raise any objection about the demarcation of the area. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the area was surveyed on 2. 1997, pursuant to the directions of the District Collector and that the petitioner, not satisfied with the same, has once again requested the District Collector on 17. 1997 and 20.7.1997 to re-do the exercise. The parties to the contract are bound by statutory rules and the terms and conditions of the contract and therefore, the petitioner cannot seek for any indulgence for resurvey and demarcation, on the basis of the directions issued by the Collector. When the statutory rules do not confer any authority on the District Collector to deal with a dispute of this nature, the petitioner cannot complain that the authorities have failed to advert to a dispute which is outside the purview of the statutory rules, rules and the terms of the contract entered into between the parties. 33. A Division Bench of this Court in Gem Granites v. Secretary to Government (2008) 4 MLJ 157 , had an occasion to consider more or less a similar case, and at Paragraph 21, this Court held as follows at p. 165 of MLJ: "21. 33. A Division Bench of this Court in Gem Granites v. Secretary to Government (2008) 4 MLJ 157 , had an occasion to consider more or less a similar case, and at Paragraph 21, this Court held as follows at p. 165 of MLJ: "21. Thus, admittedly the appellant was very much aware of the area demarcated and made available for quarrying and thereafter only applied for lease. When such is the factual position, the appellants contention now made that there was no consensus about the area is nothing but a false contention to suit to its convenience. When there is no requirement either in the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules or in the notification to furnish any sketch either by the Collector or by Tahsildar, the appellant now taking advantage of the subsequent sketch furnished by the Tahsildar, which has no legal basis or consequence, pleaded that the respondent is taking advantage of its own omission, which contention is raised only for rejection as there was no omission on the part of the respondent is our considered view. We are not able to understand what prompted the appellant to request the District Collector to have the area re-identified. Of course, the Collector, without having any reference to the earlier proceedings, such as sketch submitted the Area Technical Team of the Director of Geology and Mining and the sketch submitted in the land availability report issued by the Tahsildar has directed the Tahsildar to demarcate the land, who in a casual manner disregarding all the earlier demarcations done by the authorities, has identified some other area. The mistake so committed cannot be taken advantage of by the appellant. The condition incorporated in the lease deed and the statutory provisions along with the conditions of the gazette notification do not permit the appellant to raise the dispute of the present nature after execution of the lease deed....." 34. Reverting back to the present case, however the appellate authority, while considering the dispute, has observed that the extent of each quarry, i.e., stone quarries 1 and 2, have already been indicated in the Gazette Notification itself and that it was also reported by the Tahsildar in his letter dated 25. 1997 to the District Collector that the leased out area of the two Stone Quarries, viz., Quarry Nos.1 and 2 were demarcated in the presence of the lessees. 1997 to the District Collector that the leased out area of the two Stone Quarries, viz., Quarry Nos.1 and 2 were demarcated in the presence of the lessees. As stated supra, when the respondents are not legally enjoined with a duty to adjudicate any dispute, with reference to sketch or demarcation, the petitioner cannot demand or insist them to act contrary to the statutory rules, or take advantage of the directions given by the District Collector to measure the disputed site. 35. The question left to be considered is with regard to the opportunity of being heard, before cancellation of the lease and whether there is any violation of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules. Clause 9 of the Gazettee Notification states that the intending bidder should act in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, conditions of the Gazettee Notification and the lease. The Notification further states that if there is any violation of anyone of the conditions, the lease would be cancelled. As per the terms and conditions of the lease, the lessee has to pay the corresponding lease amount for the succeeding years, without fail on the specific dates and the manner specified. For the default in payment within the stipulated time, when show cause notices, dated 11. 1997, 26. 1988, were issued calling upon the petitioner to remit the lease amount and to explain why the lease shall not be cancelled, the petitioner had been harping only on the dispute over the demarcation of the area. 36. Though the petitioner has alleged violation of the principles of natural justice in not providing him an opportunity of being heard, perusal of the materials on record shows that neither before the original nor appellate authorities, the petitioner had ever pleaded for any personal hearing. Moreover, the petitioner has not been inflicted with any penalty for violation of rule or condition of the lease. The contractual terms contained in the lease deed makes it obligatory that the lessee has to pay the lease amount every year on or before 15th of March in advance in escalation of 20% of previous years and in the manner stated in the lease. The contractual terms contained in the lease deed makes it obligatory that the lessee has to pay the lease amount every year on or before 15th of March in advance in escalation of 20% of previous years and in the manner stated in the lease. It is evident from the materials that the petitioner has been given adequate time to remit the amount and despite the same, he had been persisting on the survey and demarcation of the area allotted to him. Non-payment of the lease amount and other incidental charges are violations of the lease conditions, warranting cancellation. In the absence of plea and proof of prejudice on account of the failure to provide personal hearing before the authorities, this Court is of the considered view that there is a substantial compliance of the principles of natural justice and therefore, there is no serious procedural irregularity warranting interference. 37. In view of the above, the orders impugned in this Writ Petition are sustained and consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.