Judgment :- The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner stated that he was given an extent of 54.74 acres of land, on lease situated at Ootacamund Town by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The lease has been in force since 1970, but the same has been renewed from time to time by the Joint Commissioner, Land Administration. For the period ending 31.12.1979, the lease rent was Rs.75,200/- per year for the whole extent of the said land. The lease rent was originally fixed at Rs.2,737/- per annum for the entire said land. The petitioner further stated that when the lease of land was taken at Ooty, the petitioner incurred huge losses, besides paying entertainment tax and betting tax. The renewal of the lease was with effect from 01.01.1980 pending the Government decision regarding renewal of the lease. The second respondent / Collector of Nilgiris collected the lease charges at the rate of Rs.84,977.15/- per annum from the said entire land, which is being paid as on date. The horse racing in Ooty is conducted only in peak summer for the period from April to June and for the rest of the period, only inter venue betting is conducted. The petitioner has submitted various representations to the respondents to reconsider the lease charges as it has to incur huge expenditure every year for conducting the races. It is relevant to notice here that this Hon'ble Court had granted an interim injunction in the writ petition in W.P.No.4655 of 1975, dated 14.07.1975 restraining the respondents from in any way interfering with the petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the property pending disposal of the writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, the lease was extended from time to time and the last renewal period was in force till 1985. The second respondent herein / Collector of Nilgiris had recommended for renewal of the lease by stating that if the race club is allowed to continue, the state will get enriched by betting tax, entertainment tax even though the race is held only in the month of April, May and June. 2. As per the recommendation of the Board of Revenue, the rent was fixed. 2. As per the recommendation of the Board of Revenue, the rent was fixed. For the period between 08.04.1987 to 31.12.1996, the Madras Race Club was under the control of the custodian appointed by the Government of Tamil Nadu and as all the properties of the petitioners were vested with the Government, the question of payment of lease charges did not arise for the said period. By the letter bearing No.DORC U2 No.90466/90 dated April 1991, the Collector of Nilgiris recommended for the renewal of the lease for the longer period of 30 years as per G.O.M.S.No.2318, Revenue dated 14.12.1998. In that letter, the Collector of Nilgiris had categorically stated that the Government is earning a huge revenue from the petitioner. Every year, the petitioner has been making improvements, at its own costs by constructing stables, syces quarters. The value of leasehold land has been improved by the petitioner. Further, every year, a demand had been raised by the District Collector, Nilgiris for the payment of land revenue and cess. The petitioner further stated that he has made representation to the second respondent herein by his letter dated 08.11.1997 seeking for the continuation of the lease hold right for a long period. The entire land is utilized for the purpose of sports i.e., horse racing during summer season and inter venue betting. In spite of several requests to renew the lease, no orders have been passed for renewal of the lease till date. The petitioner has been remitting charges at the rate of Rs.84,977.15/- per annum from 01.01.1980 till date as per the statement enclosed in the typed-set of papers. It is further submitted that all of a sudden, without any prior notice, or intimation, the second respondent, by its notice dated 24.03.2002, made a demand for increasing the charges at the rate of 12% per annum retrospectively and has made a demand for the payment of Rs.37,38,415/-from 1986 till date with interest at 12% per annum by stating that the demand is purely tentative and the amount recommended to the Government will be actually due to be collected from the petitioner on receipt of the order of renewal from the Government. Against the said order in R.C.A4.No.1198/2002, dated 27.05.2002, issued by the second respondent / Collector of Nilgiris, the petitioner filed the writ petition in W.P.No.30334 of 2002 before this Court. Against the said order in R.C.A4.No.1198/2002, dated 27.05.2002, issued by the second respondent / Collector of Nilgiris, the petitioner filed the writ petition in W.P.No.30334 of 2002 before this Court. The said writ petition was ordered by directing the first respondent to deal with the representation of the petitioner and pending the same, the impugned order dated 27.05.2002, was not to be given effect to. Therefore, a detailed representation dated 18.08.2002 was made to the first respondent setting out in detail as to how, the order passed by the Tahsildar, Udhagai was totally arbitrary and unjust and that the petitioner has been punctually paying the lease rent as demanded by the authorities regularly and in fact, has paid upto and inclusive of the period ending 30.06.2002. A personal hearing was given on 07.10.2002. Hence, the petitioner prays to quash the said demand notice since it is a violation of principles of natural justice. 3. The second respondent has filed a counter statement and resisted the writ petition. The respondent stated that an extent of 54.74 4/16 acres of land which comprises in Survey Nos.1993, 1994, 1996 and 2003/3 of Udagamandalam Town of Udagai Taluk, as under which the land had been leased out to the Madras Race Club was renewed by the Government in G.O.775, Revenue dated 04.04.1977 for a period of one year on a lease rent of Rs.2,737/- for the whole extent. The lease period expired on 31.03.1978. The respondent further stated that the Government had sanctioned further renewal of lease of lands and buildings thereon in favour of Madras Race Club for temporary occupation for a period from 01.04.1978 to 31.12.1979 on a lease rent of Rs.75,200/-per annum for the whole extent, subject to the conditions laid down in G.O.M.S.No.661, Revenue dated 27.03.1976, vide G.O.M.S.No.2509, revenue dated 15.11.1979 and Government memo No.127932/D1/79-1, Revenue dated 12.01.1980. The above lease rent was fixed by the Government, adopting a value of the land as in 1978 by adding 9% notional increase which works out to Rs.19,620/-per acre. The above lease rent was fixed by the Government, adopting a value of the land as in 1978 by adding 9% notional increase which works out to Rs.19,620/-per acre. As per the second respondent collector's letter No.U3.35661/85 dated 25.11.1985 addressed to the Government, proposals were sent to the Government for renewal of lease for an extent of 52.34 4/16 acres of land in the said survey numbers in favour of the Madras Race Club for the further period from 01.01.1981 to 31.12.1985 adopting the value of the land at Rs.26,000/- per acre in 1981 and recommending fixation of lease rent at the rate of 7% of land value. The Commissioner of Administration in his letter K.Dis.2599/80, dated 05.03.1981, addressed to the Government, recommended renewal of lease, as detailed below for the period from 01.01.1980 to 31.12.1980 adopting Rs.21,385/- as land value per acre in 1979. 1.01.1980 to 31.07.1980 = 54.74 4/16 acre 1.01.1980 to 31.12.1980 = 52.34 4/16 acre 4. It was submitted that the reason for decrease in extent was due to widening of Udhagai channel etc., in Collector's letter U3.35661/85 dated 03.09.1986 addressed to the Government; proposals were sent to Government for renewal of lease for 52.34 4/16 acres in favour of Madras Race Club from 01.01.1986 to 08.04.1986 adopting the value of the land at Rs.42,000/- per acre in 1986 and recommending fixation of lease rent @ 7% of the land value since the Government had taken over the Madras Race Club with effect from 09.04.1986 under its control as per G.O.Ms.No.973, Home dated 09.04.1986. The club functioned under the Department of Racing from 09.04.1986 to 31.01.1996. In letter D.Dis(T1) 36429/87, dated 31.12.1991 of the Commissioner of Land Administration addressed to the Government, the Commissioner of Land Administration recommended for renewal of lease for an extent of Rs.52.34 4/16 acres of land in the said S.Nos. in favour of Madras Race Club from 01.01.1980 to 08.04.1986 adopting Rs.3,00,000/- as land value per acre based on the guideline value register 1981 and fixing lease rent @ 7% of the above said land value. As per the Collector's letter U1/74951/96 dated 04.05.2000 addressed to the Commissioner of Land Administration, renewal proposals have been sent to Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration for renewal of lease for the extent of 52.34 4/16 acres of land in the said S.Nos. As per the Collector's letter U1/74951/96 dated 04.05.2000 addressed to the Commissioner of Land Administration, renewal proposals have been sent to Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration for renewal of lease for the extent of 52.34 4/16 acres of land in the said S.Nos. in favour of Madras Race Club for a period of 30 years from 01.02.1996 adopting Rs.70,54,480/-as land value per acre based on the prevailing guide line registers value at that time and fixing lease rent at 14% of the said value of land. According to this, lease rent for 52.34 4/16 acres per year works out to Rs.5,17,02,325/-. The Commissioner of Land Administration in letter E2/17459/99 dated 09.03.2001 recommended the proposals to the Government for renewal of lease orders of the Government for renewal of lease from 01.01.1980 to 08.04.1986 and from 01.02.1996 onwards are awaited. 5. It was submitted that in G.O.Ms.No.324, Revenue dated 10.09.2001, the Government had ordered the incorporation of the following condition in the lease deed. "When the lease has to be renewed on its period of expiry, the lessee shall pay the lease amount, which may be tentatively arrived at by adding the percentage provisional increase in lease on tentative valuation of land on an increase of 12% per annum to the lease year / reference year till its renewal / revision of rent that may be fixed." It was submitted that in D.O.Lr.E2/82/30986/2001-2, dated 08.01.2002 of Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration for collection of lease rent on pending renewal cases, as ordered in G.O.M.S.No.324, Revenue dated 10.09.2001, the Tahsildar, Udagai in his reference A4/1198/2002, dated 27.05.2002 issued demand notice to the Secretary, Madras Race Club to pay the tentative lease rent from 1980 onwards pending renewal of lease by the Government. It was submitted that aggrieved by the demand notice, Madras Race Club filed writ petition in the High Court, Chennai and the High Court in its judgment in W.P.No.30334 of 2002 and W.M.P.No.44231 of 2002, dated 24.07.2002 directed the petitioner to make a representation to the District Collector pertaining to the infirmities pointed out in the demand notice, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the orders and the District Collector shall consider the representation of the petitioner so made on merits and in accordance with law and dispose the same within six weeks from the date of receipt of the representation of the petitioner. 6. It was submitted that the Secretary, Madras Race Club in the letter dated 18.08.2002 had given representation which was received in this office on 06.09.2002. The Secretary, Madras Race Club, was given a personal hearing and the representative appeared before the Collector on 07.10.2002 and they were enquired. As requested by them, time was granted to them to file their objections. In the letter dated 19.10.2002, Madras Race Club filed their objections and requested to set-aside the demand notice sent by the Tahsildar, Udagai. The contentions raised by the Madras Race Club in the letter dated 18.08.2002 and the objections filed in the letter dated 19.10.2002 were examined. The demand notice issued by the Tahsildar, Udhagai is only tentative as per the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.324, Revenue dated 10.09.2001 and the actual lease amount will be intimated after receipt of the Government orders. As the representations put-forth by Madras Race Club are devoid of any merit and therefore not acceptable, the request of Secretary, Madras Race Club has been rejected in this office proceeding Rc.U1.No.4781/2002, dated 30.11.2002. 7. It was submitted that the Tahsildar, Udagai had been instructed to issue revised demand notice adopting the value of land at Rs.19,620/-per acre in 1978 and fixing tentative lease rent from 01.01.1980 as per G.O.Ms.No.324, Revenue Department, dated 10.09.2002, by adding 12% on the land value every year. It has been pointed out that the demand to be raised by the Tahsildar, Udagai was only tentative lease rent from 01.01.1980 to 08.04.1986 and from 01.02.1996 till date and the actual lease rent would be intimated after receipt of Government orders. It has been pointed out that the demand to be raised by the Tahsildar, Udagai was only tentative lease rent from 01.01.1980 to 08.04.1986 and from 01.02.1996 till date and the actual lease rent would be intimated after receipt of Government orders. Aggrieved by the orders issued, the Madras Race Club, represented by its Secretary had filed writ petition in the High Court in W.P.No.46099 of 2002 and this Court in its order in W.M.P.No.67163 of 2002 in W.P.No.46099 of 2002, dated 26.12.2002, cited has granted interim injunction on 26.12.2002 on condition that the petitioner continues to pay contractual rent due by it without any default, since the Government, who are the competent authority had not fixed the new rent payable for the extended period of lease. The Government of Tamil Nadu represented by the Commissioner of Land Administration, Collector of Nilgiris and the Tahsildar, Udahagai have been impleaded as respondents 1, 2 and 3 respectively in this writ petition. 8. It was submitted that in 1948, the 99 years lease sanctioned to Ootacamund Race Company Limited was cancelled as the said company itself agreed to such a cancellation and the lease sanctioned in G.O.Ms.No.2995, Revenue, dated 15.12.1920 was also allowed to continue. Subsequently, the lease was renewed from time to time and on expiry of the above lease on 07.08.1968, it was further renewed for a period of five years on an annual lease amount of Rs.9,000/-per acre in G.O.Ms.No.1849, Revenue, dated 16.06.1970. During the period of the above lease, the Ootacamund Race Company Limited had amalgamated with the Madras Race Club under a scheme of amalgamation which had its effect from 14.05.1970, as per order in company petition No.20 of 1970 on the file of the High Court, Madras, dated 30.04.1970. Further, the Government reduced the lease amount of Rs.9,000/- per annum to Rs.50/- per annum for a period of five years from 08.08.1968 to 07.08.1973 in G.O.Ms.No.2715, Revenue dated 18.10.1972. Apart from that, the Government had also sanctioned the lease in the name of Madras Race Club as per G.O.Ms.No.2716, Revenue dated 18.10.1972 for a period of five years from 14.05.1970 to 13.05.1975. On expiry of lease in 13.05.1975, the demised properties were resumed by the Government and against this the Madras Race Club had raised certain contentions in writ petition No.4655 of 1975. On expiry of lease in 13.05.1975, the demised properties were resumed by the Government and against this the Madras Race Club had raised certain contentions in writ petition No.4655 of 1975. The High Court issued an injunction order on 14th July 1975 restraining the Government from in any way interfering with the Madras Race Club possession and enjoyment of the property, pending further orders on the writ petition. 9. It was submitted that in G.O.Ms.No.661, Revenue, dated 27.03.1976, further renewed the lease in favour of the Madras Race Club to an extent of 54.75 acres of land and buildings thereon situated in R.S.Nos.1993, 1994, 1996 and 2000/3 of Ootacamund Town, for a period commencing on the date they were permitted to enter the demised premises and terminating on 15.06.1976, subject to the lease rent to be fixed for the period of occupancy at Rs.2,737/-, exclusive of all rates, losses and charges that @ Rs.50/- per acre per annum. The lease period expired on 31.03.1978. 10. Though reduction of lease rent from Rs.9,000/- per acre per annum to Rs.50/-per acre per annum was ordered by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.2315, Revenue dated 18.10.1972, after considering the objections of the Madras Race Club, the Government subsequently raised the lease rent from Rs.2,737/- per annum to Rs.75,200/-per annum for the entire extent in G.O.Ms.No.2509, Revenue dated 15.11.1979, which was collected from Madras Race Club despite strong protest from the club. Thereafter, a sum of Rs.84,977/- was collected from the club for the entire extent inclusive of Municipal Tax. There is no compulsion on the part of the Madras Race Club to conduct racing by incurring huge expenditure every year. If they want to continue racing, statutory taxes such as betting tax, entertainment tax, including lease rent as demanded by the Government should be remitted. The lease rent has to be revised and fixed once in three years based on the prevailing market value of the land. Therefore, the petitioner cannot expect the lease rent should not be revised and enhanced and that only concessional rent be fixed as the Government are earning substantial revenue from the petitioner. It was also submitted that no lease proposals were initiated for the period from 09.04.1986 to 31.01.1996 since the club was functioning under the control of the Government in the Department of racing. It was also submitted that no lease proposals were initiated for the period from 09.04.1986 to 31.01.1996 since the club was functioning under the control of the Government in the Department of racing. Making improvement or development in the leased out land at the cost of the petitioner would not qualify for claiming any concession in the matter of reduction of lease rent. 11. It was submitted that the contention of the petitioner that the present demand is totally in violation of the principles of natural justice, arbitrary and illegal cannot be accepted as the demand notice has been issued as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.324, Revenue dated 10.09.2001. It was submitted that the demand notice was issued only by the third respondent, i.e, Tahsildar, Udagai and not by the second respondent, i.e., Collector of Nilgiris as contended in the writ petition. It was submitted that as Madras Race Club is paying a lease rent of Rs.84,977/-per annum for the whole extent since 01.07.1980, the petitioner has to remit the balance amount demanded and this was already considered. It was submitted that as the lands have been in continuous possession of the writ petitioner and further lease has not been renewed from 01.01.1980, the petitioner has to make payment retrospectively with effect from 01.01.1980 and interest should also be paid for the unpaid amount all these years. 12. It was submitted that the second respondent had carefully examined the representation of the petitioner by giving ample opportunity to him as per the directions of the High Court and orders have been issued by the second respondent in proceeding Rc.U1.4781/2002, dated 30.11.2002, directing him to remit tentative lease arrears since 01.01.1980. The first respondent has never directed the second respondent to issue revised demand as contended by the petitioner. It is the second respondent, who has directed the third respondent, i.e., the Tahsildar, Udhagai to issue revised demand notice to the petitioner adopting the value of land @ Rs.19,620/-per acre in 1978 as per orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.2509, Revenue dated 15.11.1979, in which the value of land in question was fixed at Rs.19,620/- per acre. 13. It is the second respondent, who has directed the third respondent, i.e., the Tahsildar, Udhagai to issue revised demand notice to the petitioner adopting the value of land @ Rs.19,620/-per acre in 1978 as per orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.2509, Revenue dated 15.11.1979, in which the value of land in question was fixed at Rs.19,620/- per acre. 13. It was submitted that the lessee was well informed that the demand to be issued by the Tahsildar, Udagai is only tentative lease rent for the period in question and that the actual lease rent would be intimated after receipt of Government orders and hence, as per the G.O.Ms.No.324, Revenue, dated 10.09.2001, the demand notice has been issued dated 27.05.2003. It was submitted that the race club is being run commercially and is situated at the heart of Udagai Town and the market value of the land is far higher than the value now adopted tentatively. Based on this, the tentative lease rent has been fixed and the Tahsildar had been directed to issue revised demand notice as per Collector's proceedings Rc.U1.4781/2002 dated 30.11.2002. Hence, it was prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the demand notice has been issued by the District Collector, Nilgiris, arbitrarily, which runs against the petitioner's right of natural justice. Further, the respondent has decided the annual rent of Rs.84,977/- with effect from 01.01.1980 and this decision had been taken by the respondents in a unilateral manner which goes against the terms and conditions of the lease agreement made between both the parties. The petitioner, without committing any default, has been regularly paying the original annual rent. As per the impugned order, the respondent had demanded revised rent with retrospective effect, which is also violating the terms and conditions of the lease agreement. The very competent counsel further contended that for enhancing the annual rent, the respondent had not assigned any valid reasons. As such, the demand notice is not sustainable under law. The Government of the State has been collecting betting tax and Entertainment Tax, since the petitioner has been utilizing the premises for racing, which is also being conducted only for three months in the month of April, May and June every year. Hence, the learned counsel entreats the Court to set-aside the impugned order of the second respondent herein. 15. The Government of the State has been collecting betting tax and Entertainment Tax, since the petitioner has been utilizing the premises for racing, which is also being conducted only for three months in the month of April, May and June every year. Hence, the learned counsel entreats the Court to set-aside the impugned order of the second respondent herein. 15. The learned counsel for the State contended that the petitioner has occupied the respondent's land, on lease basis, to an extent of 54.74 acres, situated at Ootacamund Town. The said lease has been in force since 1970. The lease rent was renewed from time to time by the first respondent. Further, the annual lease rent had also been enhanced. The same was accepted and complied with by the petitioner. Similarly, the second respondent has now fixed the annual rent as Rs.5,17,02,325/- for the entire land. Actually, the petitioner gets more income through conducting of the horse racing. The petitioner is also conducting inter venue betting in which the earnings are more substantial. As such, the petitioner is enjoying the land through out the year. If the petitioner's allegation that they are facing financial loss in occupying and enjoying the property for running the race is true, then there is no compulsion for him to occupy the said land. Nothing prevents him to deliver the property backto the state. The very competent counsel further contended that the enhanced rent demanded by the second respondent has been based only on the basis of land value and infrastructure over the said land including buildings thereon. Therefore, the demand notice has been sent after thorough consideration of various parameters. The respondents are public officers and authorized persons to decide the quantum of annual lease rent for the said property. 16. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and on hearing the arguments of the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned order of the second respondent, this Court is of the view that:- (i) Usually the lease deed is drawn up by laying out general clauses wherein the quantum of annal lease rent would have also been mentioned after agreement of both parties. In this case, without consulting lessee/writ petitioner, the respondent herein/lessor had fixed the annual rent as Rs.5,17,02,325/-which is a unilateral decision. Therefore, the petitioner's consent has to be taken before fixing the annual rent. In this case, without consulting lessee/writ petitioner, the respondent herein/lessor had fixed the annual rent as Rs.5,17,02,325/-which is a unilateral decision. Therefore, the petitioner's consent has to be taken before fixing the annual rent. Hence, this Court observes that the impugned order had been prejudicial to the interests of the writ petitioner. (ii) Therefore, the respondent has to give an opportunity to the petitioner by issuing fresh notice / preliminary notice for fixing the fair rent for the said property and then both the parties i.e., lessor and lessee have to come to an agreement on the fair rent issue, within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iii) This Court's further view that the respondent Government can pass Government order against the private individuals for better administration and otherwise. But in the instant case the respondents who have passed the impugned order against the petitioner herein is not sustainable, since this matter is covered by the Indian Contract Act. Therefore, for enhancing fair rent both the parties ie., petitioner and respondents have to discuss and negotiate in the arrangement arrived at, since the respondents and the writ petitioner termed as lessor and lessee, but the respondents have passed the impugned order without arriving on settled terms as explained above. 17. In the result, the above writ petition is allowed after observing the above views listed. Consequently, the impugned order passed in RC.VI.4781/2002 dated 30.11.2002 is set-aside. The second respondent is at liberty to issue preliminary notice to the writ petitioner before fixing the annual rent for the said proposal. Further, this Court directs the respondents to decide the fair rent, in the presence of the writ petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There is no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Accordingly ordered.