Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 882 (MAD)

Alagappa Swamy v. District Collector, Tirunelveli

2015-02-12

B.RAJENDRAN

body2015
Judgment :- 1. Since the issue involved in all the Writ Petitions are one and the same, a common order is passed. 2. The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.11157 of 2014 has been filed for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the 2nd respondent impugned notice dated 27.06.2014 in Dinathanthi issue dated 02.07.2014 and quash the same and further direct the 2nd respondent to continue his fishing rights based on auction dated 06.06.2014. 3. The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.669 of 2015 has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent as published in Dhinathanthi Nellai issue, dated 10.01.2015 in Na.Ka.No.49/2006 dated 07.01.2015 and quash the same in so far as Rajasingaperi Tank and further direct the respondents to renew the lease to the petitioner for 4 more years accepting 10% increase as contemplated in G.O.Ms.No.332. 4. The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.1251 of 2015 has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned letter, passed by the 3rd respondent, Na.Ka.49/2006 dated 23.01.2015 and consequential impugned letter passed by the 3rd respondent Na.ka.169/2007, dated 23.01.2015 and quash the same as illegal and thereby forbearing these respondents and their fellow men, subordinates and servants in interfering the possession of fishery right of this petitioner in Rajasingaperi tank in Rayagiri Village, in Sivagiri Taluk in Tirunelveli District. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was given an auction for fishing rights, since he was the highest bidder, offered an amount of Rs.51,300/- and thereafter, he increased it to Rs.1,82,194/- on 06.06.2014. The auction was granted in his favour subject to the condition that it will be approved by the District Collector. But taking into consideration that he is the highest bidder, he had taken possession with the acceptance of the officials, he has put fish seeds. But, subsequently, the District Collector seems to have cancelled it on 08.08.2014, as the bid amount is very meagre. Therefore, the 2nd auction was called for, he challenged the same by filing W.P.(MD)No.11157 of 2014 and also praying to reconsider and allow him to continue the fishing rights. In that writ petition, though Notice of Motion ordered, no interim order has been granted. 6. Therefore, the 2nd auction was called for, he challenged the same by filing W.P.(MD)No.11157 of 2014 and also praying to reconsider and allow him to continue the fishing rights. In that writ petition, though Notice of Motion ordered, no interim order has been granted. 6. Thereafter, by another publication dated 07.01.2015 a further new tender was called for and the proposed auction was to be held on 23.01.2015. That notification was challenged in W.P.(MD)No.669 of 2015 and since no order of interim stay was granted, the auction was conducted. The 4th respondent in W.P.(MD)No.1251 of 2015, has become the successful bidder in the auction held on 27.01.2015, since he is highest bidder, offered an amount of Rs.3,82,000/-. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to vacate the tank by virtue of the impugned order dated 23.01.2015. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.1251 of 2015. 7. The only grievance of the petitioner is that as per the original term, the period expired on 30.10.2014. But at that point of time, there was no water in the tank and therefore, he could not reap the harvest. Hence, he made a representation dated 02.07.2014, to the District Collector, Tirunelveli, but without considering the said representation for extension of time, they called for the 2nd auction, and according to the petitioner, which is not correct. 8. The learned Additional Government Pleader would contend that the petitioner's original period itself had expired as early as on 10.10.2013 and thereafter, when the 2nd auction was held on 03.06.2014, he was the highest bidder and thereafter, when it was questioned, he increased it to 1,82,194/-, but that was given only subject to the confirmation by the District Collector, Tirunelveli. However, the District Collector, by proceedings dated 08.08.2014 itself has cancelled the same on the ground that the amount is very meager. Till that point of time no permission was granted for him to occupy the tank and without the permission of the authorities, he has occupied the tank and therefore, he cannot be given any concession. Further, subsequent auction was called for on 23.01.2015 wherein he did not participate and in auction the 4th respondent has participated in the auction and offered highest amount and he has now been given possession on 30.01.2015. However, the petitioner, who has no authority, had entered into the tank without any authority order. Further, subsequent auction was called for on 23.01.2015 wherein he did not participate and in auction the 4th respondent has participated in the auction and offered highest amount and he has now been given possession on 30.01.2015. However, the petitioner, who has no authority, had entered into the tank without any authority order. Therefore, the present impugned order dated 23.01.2015 has been passed, calling upon the petitioner to be evicted, which is given in accordance with law and also necessary criminal action to be initiated against him, if does not vacate the tank. In the meanwhile, the 4th respondent has been given possession. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be given any indulgence at all. 9. The 4th respondent, who is the successful bidder, would contend that he is the highest bidder now, he has already taken possession on 30.01.2015, after the confirmation by the District Collector, Tirunelveli and therefore, the writ petitions, at this stage, are not maintainable. 10. This Court heard the submissions of the respective counsel and perused the materials available on record. 11. According to the petitioner, he was a successful licensee for a limited period i.e., upto 10.10.2013, made a representation to the District Collector, seeking for extension, since at that point of time, there was no water in the tank and therefore, he could not reap the harvest. But the authorities, without considering his representation, proceeded further. Be that as it may, the wrong thing, which has been committed by the petitioner is that in the auction, when it was conducted on 06.06.2014 in his favour there is no confirmation and the order clearly says that it is subject to the confirmation by the collector. No order of the confirmation was received by him. In fat, the District Collector after examining the overall aspects, has passed a detailed order stating that since the amount offered by the petitioner is very meager, has cancelled the auction and the same has also been communicated to the petitioner. 12. Now the petitioner would contend that he has taken possession subsequent to the auction on 06.06.2014, which under the law cannot be permitted. It is equally pointed out that the authorities, who had permitted him or allowed him kept 'Nelsons' eye' for this person and they should also be taken to task because without the authorities direct knowledge, he could not have taken possession of the tank. It is equally pointed out that the authorities, who had permitted him or allowed him kept 'Nelsons' eye' for this person and they should also be taken to task because without the authorities direct knowledge, he could not have taken possession of the tank. Now, the authorities would contend in the present notice that the petitioner has taken possession without any authority. It is a big tank. He was the existing licensee. He also knows very well that he cannot enter without the permission and the authorities also know very well that he was the erstwhile licensee. Therefore, this Court also would direct the District Collector, Tirunelveli to take appropriate action and investigate into the matter, how first of all the petitioner entered into possession before the confirmation is granted. When the collector is seized off the matter, can the authorities permit or keeping the eyes close for somebody to take possession of the tank without even payment of the money or being confirmed by the Collector. This point has to be separately taken note of the Collector and necessary proceedings has to be initiated against the erring officials also. 13. Be that as it may, for the wrong committed by the petitioner, the petitioner should also be taken to task. Therefore, the petitioner's contention that the subsequent auction cannot be conducted, cannot be sustained in law at all. The collector was well within the limit cancelling the earlier auction and thereafter, called for the 2nd auction. When the petitioner filed the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.669 of 2015, I have categorically made an order as early as on 21.01.2015 that the authorities can proceed further with the notification and also specifically permitted the petitioner to participate in the auction. Inspite of that specific direction, the petitioner has not participated in the auction. Therefore, he cannot now come to the court seeking for discretionary relief from the Court. 14. Lastly, the present writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.1251 of 2015 is filed challenging the notice calling upon the petitioner to remove the shed. Now it is stated that the shed has been removed and possession has also been handed over to the 4th respondent and subsequent auction has also been confirmed. Therefore, nothing survives in the present writ petition. 15. 14. Lastly, the present writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.1251 of 2015 is filed challenging the notice calling upon the petitioner to remove the shed. Now it is stated that the shed has been removed and possession has also been handed over to the 4th respondent and subsequent auction has also been confirmed. Therefore, nothing survives in the present writ petition. 15. Suffice it to say one thing that when the auction is taking place the authorities should take necessary action to see that it is handed over only after the confirmation. But, it is open for the petitioner, if he is really invested huge money, by putting fish seeds, under the bonafide intention that he will be granted confirmation, he can make a representation to the District Collector, Tiurnelveli, for the recovery of the same and it is for the authorities to decide. The court only say to the petitioner because he is a violator, he cannot be given any discretionary relief. 16. In the result, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.