Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 283 (MAD)

K. Paunraj v. District Collector, Madurai

2015-01-20

K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

body2015
Judgment 1. The petitioner is seeking for a Mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 to 4 herein in any way considering the request of the 5th respondent for grant of rough stone quarry in S.Nos.88/1, 88/2A, 88/2B, 88/3A and 88/4A measuring 3.41.0 hectares in Poruppumettupatti Village, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District, more fully duing the pendency of the suit in O.S.No.19 of 2013 on the file of IV Additional District Court, Madurai. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court. 3. The case of the petitioner is as follows:- The fifth respondent is his elder brother and fraudulently executed few documents in his favour to grab the property of joint family. There is no partition among the family members in respect of joint family properties. Since there were differences among the members of the family and the fifth respondent, the petitioner and two other sisters filed a civil suit in O.S.No.19 of 2013 seeking for declaration declare the gift deed as well as the relinquishment deed as invalid non-est in law and they also prayed for partition. The fifth respondent herein is the second defendant therein. Taking advantage of the fraudulent documents, the fifth respondent applied for rough stone quarry lease from the first respondent and obtained an order in the month of October 2009. The petitioner objected for conducting any quarry operation in the said patta land where other family members are having equal share. Because of the objection raised by the family members, the quarrying operation was not carried out. The fifth respondent sent a request on 18.10.2014 to the respondents 1 and 2 seeking further renewal. The respondents 1 to 5 are colluding with each other for grant of lease in favour of the fifth respondent. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed with the relief as stated supra. 4. At the time of hearing the matter for admission, this Court, by an order dated 17.11.2014 ordered status quo as on that date, if the Collector has not passed any order. 5. Mr.D.Sadiq Raja, learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent submitted that the fifth respondent was originally granted lease, which was in force still in 2014 and therefore, the fifth respondent has only filed renewal application before the authorities. 5. Mr.D.Sadiq Raja, learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent submitted that the fifth respondent was originally granted lease, which was in force still in 2014 and therefore, the fifth respondent has only filed renewal application before the authorities. He further submitted that his renewal application can be considered and decided on merits and in accordance with law also by hearing the petitioner as well. 6. Upon hearing the counsels appearing on either side and perusing the materials placed before this Court, this Court is of the view that the first respondent has to consider the application filed by the fifth respondent seeking for renewal of lease of the above said quarry and pass orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law also by considering the objection raised by the petitioner. The petitioner has come before this Court even before an order is passed by the first respondent on the application filed by the fifth respondent. As already stated supra, the first respondent shall consider the objection raised by the petitioner and give him due opportunity of hearing as well before passing the order on the application filed by the fifth respondent seeking for renewal of lease. It is also made clear that this Court is not expressing any view on the merits and contentions raised by the respective parties as the first respondent has to consider and decide the application of the fifth respondent on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner as well. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to pass such order as stated supra, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.