Judgment : M. Jaichandren, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. Both the Writ Appeals, in W.A(MD).Nos. 971 and 986 of 2013, had been filed against the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court, dated 29.08.2013, in W.P. (MD) No.8747 of 2013. 3. Since common issues are arising for the consideration of this Court, both the Writ Appeals are heard together and a common judgment is being passed. W.A(MD)No.971 of 2013 4. The appellants, in W.A.(MD).No.971 of 2013 have filed the said Writ Appeal stating that the order of the learned single Judge, dated 29.08.2013, made in W.P.(MD) No.8747 of 2013, in permitting the third respondent, namely, C.Sanjay Gandhi, who is the appellant, in W.A.(MD).No.986 of 2013, to cut and remove the Velikaruval trees, for a further period of 30 days, after the expiry of the period originally granted to him, is erroneous and unsustainable in the eye of law. The learned single Judge ought to have considered the undertaking given by the first respondent that he is ready and willing to reduce the period of five months granted to the third respondent, to two months, for the cutting and removing of the trees. 5. It had also been stated that the third respondent had been permitted to cut and remove only 2191 tonnes of Velikaruval trees, as per the confirmation order of the second respondent, dated 08.11.2012. 6. It has also been stated that the learned single Judge had failed to note that the respondents have not filed any supporting documents to show that the third respondent had cut and removed only 880 tonnes of Velikaruval trees, upto 09.04.2013. No report had been filed by the first respondent, inspite of the specific direction, dated 04.07.2013. Infact, the third respondent had cut and removed more than 15,000 tonnes of Velikaruval trees, upto 09.04.2013, by engaging more than 1000 employees for cutting and removing the trees, from 880 acres of land. 7. It had been further stated that there has been no rain during the period, from 09.11.2012 to 09.04.2013, as claimed by the third respondent. Infact, the Government of Tamil Nadu, has declared the area, as a drought hit area and had also carried out relief operations in the said area. 8. 7. It had been further stated that there has been no rain during the period, from 09.11.2012 to 09.04.2013, as claimed by the third respondent. Infact, the Government of Tamil Nadu, has declared the area, as a drought hit area and had also carried out relief operations in the said area. 8. The learned single Judge ought to have considered the fact that there is a huge revenue loss caused to the concerned panchayats as well as the Government of Tamil Nadu, in view of the extension order granted by the second respondent. 9. The learned single Judge ought to have noted that no records are placed before this Court to show the weight of the trees which had been cut and removed by the third respondent. No specific reason had been stated by the learned single Judge, while granting extension of time, of one month, to the third respondent. He had not considered the earlier order passed by him, on 21.06.2013, while granting the extension of time in favour of the third respondent. 10. Even though the extension of time would be granted only for a period of two months, in the usual course, the second respondent had granted such extension, to the third respondent for a period of five months, arbitrarily. It had also been stated that the auction sale consideration of Rs.75 Lakhs is a meager amount compared to the value of the trees in the area concerned, which would be more than Rs.6 crores. Therefore, the appellants have filed the present Writ Appeal, challenging the order of the learned Judge, dated 29.08.2013, made in W.P.(MD).No.8747 of 2013. W.A(MD)No.986 of 2013 11. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, in W.A. (MD).No.986 of 2013, had submitted that the learned single Judge had passed the order, dated 29.08.2013, in W.P.(MD) No.8747 of 2013, granting further time of one month, for cutting and removing of the Velikaruval trees by the appellant, who is the third respondent, in W.A.(MD).No.971 of 2013. However, he ought to have noted that it would not be possible for the appellant to cut and remove the trees in question, within a period of one month, as the cutting of the trees had to be stopped, due to the water logging, as well as unseasonal heavy rains in the lands in question, in which the cutting operations had been done. 12. 12. It had also been stated that the second respondent had granted an extension to the appellant for cutting and removing the trees, by five months, upto 02.10.2013. However, the learned single Judge had reduced it to one month, without taking into consideration the fact that it would be impossible for the appellant to cut and remove the remaining number of trees, as per the terms and conditions of the confirmation order passed by the second respondent, dated 08.11.2012, in favour of the appellant, pursuant to the auction notice, dated 06.07.2013. 13. Even though the respondents 3 to 5 were aware of the fact that the upset price was fixed, as Rs.47,65,475/-, and that the auction was scheduled to be held, on 26.07.2012, they had not challenged the said procedure followed by the first and the second respondents. Further, the respondents 3 to 5 cannot be said to be aggrieved persons, as they have nothing to lose, by the granting of the extension of time, to the appellant, for cutting and removing of the trees in question. 14. It had been further stated that the respondents 3 to 5 had not participated in the auction, nor had they challenged the same, in the manner known to law. While so, it is not open to them to challenge the extension of five months time, granted to the appellant, for cutting and removing the trees. Even according to the second respondent, less than 900 tonnes of trees had been cut and removed, while he had been permitted to cut and remove 2191 tonnes of trees. 15. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant had submitted that in fact there is no upper limit of tonnage fixed by the authorities concerned and therefore, it would not be open to the respondents 3 to 5 herein to claim that the appellant had been permitted to cut and remove 2191 tonnes of trees, as there is no such specification in the terms and conditions of auction sale conducted, pursuant to the auction notice, dated 06.07.2013. 16. 16. In such circumstances, the restricted period of one month, granted by the learned single Judge in his order, dated 29.08.2013, in W.P.(MD) No.8747 of 2013, cannot be held to be correct, especially, in view of the fact that the appellant had cut and removed less than 900 tonnes of trees, as per the report of the second respondent. Therefore, this Court may be pleased to grant further extension of time, for a period of 69 days, from 02.10.2013, for cutting and removing the trees, as per the order of the second respondent. 17. The learned counsel had stated that there has been an order of stay for cutting and removing of the trees during the pendency of the Writ Petition, before this Court and therefore, the first and the second respondents had granted extension of time, in favour of the appellant. 18. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and in view of the records available, we find that the appellant in the Writ Appeal, in W.A.(MD).No. 986 of 2013, who is the third respondent in the Writ Appeal, in W.A.(MD).No.971 of 2013, was the highest bidder in the auction held, pursuant to the auction notice, dated 06.07.2013, and the upset price was fixed as Rs.47,65,475/-. The appellant, in W.A.(MD).No.986 of 2013 was declared to be the highest bidder. He had been granted permission to cut and remove the Velikaruval trees, from the lands in question as per the terms and conditions of the confirmation order of the second respondent, dated 08.11.2012. The said appellant had claimed that he could not cut and remove the trees, as per the order issued in his favour, due to the unseasonal heavy rains and the water logging in the lands in question. Therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangi, had granted extension of time, to the appellant, to cut and remove the trees, from 03.05.2013 to 02.10.2013. However, the appellant had lost 69 days, out of the extended period of five months, due to the order of stay granted by this Court, in W.P.(MD).No.8747 of 2013. 19. It is also noted, from the order of the second respondent, that the appellant had cut and removed only 880 tonnes of trees, till 03.04.2012. However, the appellant had lost 69 days, out of the extended period of five months, due to the order of stay granted by this Court, in W.P.(MD).No.8747 of 2013. 19. It is also noted, from the order of the second respondent, that the appellant had cut and removed only 880 tonnes of trees, till 03.04.2012. Therefore, the learned single Judge of this Court had found it fit to grant a further period of one month, to the appellant, for cutting and removing the trees. However, the appellant had filed the Writ Appeal, in W.A.(MD).No.986 of 2013, stating that it would not be possible to cut and remove the balance tonnage of trees, as per the confirmation order, dated 08.11.2012. 20. On considering the rival contentions raised on behalf of the appellants in the above appeals, we find it appropriate to grant time to the appellant, in W.A.(MD).No.986 of 2013, till 31.12.2013, to cut and remove the trees from the lands in question, as per the confirmation order of the second respondent, dated 08.11.2012, as it has been stated that the appellant had cut and removed the trees, upto 880 tonnes. Therefore, the appellant would be entitled to cut and remove the balance tonnage of trees, which is about 1311 tones, approximately. It is made clear that the said appellant would be entitled to cut only 1311 tonnes of Velikaruval trees, from the lands in question, as per the order of the second respondent, even though he was granted time till 31.12.2013, for the cutting and removing of trees in question. It is for the first and the second respondents to ensure that the appellant, in W.A.(MD).No. 986 of 2013, does not cut and remove more than the specified tonnage of trees, as permitted by this Court, by this order. No further extension shall be granted, on any ground, to the appellant in W.A. (MD).No.986 of 2013, without further permission of this Court. 21. The Writ Appeal, in W.A.(MD).No.986 of 2013 stands allowed to the extent indicated above. 22. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the appellants, in W.A.(MD).No.971 of 2013, cannot to be said to be aggrieved parties and they are not entitled to challenge the order of the learned single Judge, made in W.P.(MD).No.8747 of 2013, dated 29.08.2013. 21. The Writ Appeal, in W.A.(MD).No.986 of 2013 stands allowed to the extent indicated above. 22. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the appellants, in W.A.(MD).No.971 of 2013, cannot to be said to be aggrieved parties and they are not entitled to challenge the order of the learned single Judge, made in W.P.(MD).No.8747 of 2013, dated 29.08.2013. It is not in dispute that they had not participated in the auction, pursuant to the auction notice, dated 06.07.2013. As such, the Writ Appeal, in W.A.(MD).No.971 of 2013, is devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. Consequently, all the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.