Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2377 (MAD)

T. S. Srinath v. District Collector, Krishnagiri

2013-07-09

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2013
Judgment :- 1. With the consent of both parties, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal, as the matter lies in narrow compass. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The petitioner was granted lease by way of Lease Deed dated 13.8.2008 to quarry rough stone, jelly and sized stones in the premises in Survey No.136 (Part-3), in Venkatesapuram Village, Hosur Taluk. The lease was entered between the petitioner and the District Collector, Krishnagiri for a period of 5 years from 13.8.2008 to 12.8.2013. 4. Now the petitioner has made representations dated 19.4.2013 and 17.6.2013 to the respondent to grant the lease for a period of 10 years instead of 5 years, as the quarry was a virgin one, as per Rule 8(8) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1959. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the aforesaid Rule, the lease should have been for 10 years from 13.8.2008 to 12.8.2018. 5. Since no order is passed, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking for a direction to grant lease for a period of 10 years commencing from 13.8.2008 in accordance with Rule 8(8) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1959. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Rule 8(8) of the aforesaid Rules and has sought for 10 years lease period commencing from 13.8.2008. 7. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader has submitted that the quarry is not a virgin one. Even if it is a virgin one, if both parties entered into an agreement of lease for a period of 5 years, the same cannot be extended citing Rule 8(8) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules. He has relied on the Full Bench judgment in C.Muthukrishnan vs. the District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli and others reported in 2011 (5) CTC 577 in support of his contention. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. 9. As rightly contended by the learned Special Government Pleader, an identical issue was decided by the Full Bench judgment in in C.Muthukrishnan vs. the District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli and others reported in 2011 (5) CTC 577 . 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. 9. As rightly contended by the learned Special Government Pleader, an identical issue was decided by the Full Bench judgment in in C.Muthukrishnan vs. the District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli and others reported in 2011 (5) CTC 577 . The Full Bench held that though Rule 8(8) provides for lease period of 10 years in the case of virgin quarry, if the lease was entered for a period of 5 years with eyes open, the party cannot seek for extension of 5 more years. The relevant passage found in paragraph No.27 of the aforesaid judgment is extracted hereunder: "27........ However, in respect of the lease granted based on the Notification issued by the District Collector after the amended Rule has come into existence, the amended Rule no doubt confers a right of 10 years period, but subject to the period of lease mentioned in the Lease Deed. Even though the participant has got a right to claim the period of 10 years, such right was available to him at the time of the Notification issued by the District Collector under Rule 8(1) of the Rules and having failed to raise his objections with eyes wide open to the terms of the Notification which restricted the period of lease to five years ever after the amendment, if a person participates in the tender process and being a highest bidder executes voluntarily a Lease Deed for a lesser period, he cannot, as a matter of right, claim extension of lease upto the period of 10 years. Such fixation of period, in our view, even though the amended Rule confers a right on the lessee in respect of virgin quarry, when once the District Collector fixes lesser period which depends upon various circumstances and factors and the same is accepted by a party entering into a lease agreement, the terms of the Lease Agreement are binding." 10. In this case, the lease was entered on 13.8.2008. The lease is for a period of five years from 13.8.2008 to 12.8.2013. At the time when the lease has to expire, the petitioner seeks extension of lease for 5 more years. The same is not permissible, as per the judgment of the Full Bench referred to above. Hence, the Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. The lease is for a period of five years from 13.8.2008 to 12.8.2013. At the time when the lease has to expire, the petitioner seeks extension of lease for 5 more years. The same is not permissible, as per the judgment of the Full Bench referred to above. Hence, the Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.