JUDGMENT : The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the fifth respondent in Na.Ka.B1.5711/2002, dated 03.06.2003 and quash the same. 2. According to the petitioner, he is carrying on business in the name and style of M/s.Minerva Fire Works and that more than 200 employees are employed in it. It is situated in Survey Nos.557/1-3 and 558/1 and other survey number(s). An extent of 28 cents in S.No.556 is Oorani Poramboke. All these lands are situated in Sivakasi Taluk/Village. The petitioner spent lot of money for improvement of the lands and installed pump-set for lifting water from the Well. It is further stated that the first respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.799, Revenue Department, dated 30.05.1989, granting lease for 12 years, subject to the payment of lease amount at 7% on double the market value together with local cess and surcharge and with other terms stated therein. The said lease amount would be revised once in a block period of three years based on the then prevailing market value. It is the stand of the petitioner that the lease amount for first three years i.e. from 1989 to 1991 was fixed at Rs.30,366/- and the lease amount per year is Rs.10,122/- and it is stated that the petitioner has paid the lease amount. According to the petitioner, there was a demand notice issued by the Tahsildar, demanding to pay a sum of Rs.6,01,183/- being the lease amount upto 2002. In the event of failure to pay the said amount, Revenue recovery proceedings will be initiated. The petitioner submitted that he was not issued with any notice/letter/communication and requested the authorities to take note of the objections of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the demand made is more than Rs.6 lakhs, which is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the said G.O. dated 30.05.1989 and that the petitioner has already paid the amount for the first block of three years and if any revision is done, it can only be after notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon paragraph 2 of Revenue Standing Orders in BSO.24-A regarding the grant of land and buildings at the disposal of the Government for temporary occupation for non-agricultural purposes and the said BSO.24-A, paragraph 2, reads as follows: "2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon paragraph 2 of Revenue Standing Orders in BSO.24-A regarding the grant of land and buildings at the disposal of the Government for temporary occupation for non-agricultural purposes and the said BSO.24-A, paragraph 2, reads as follows: "2. Period of temporary occupation: The maximum period should not generally exceed 3 years at a time, for bunks, shops etc. However the Government may grant any land on lease, for a period of 20 years. At the time of renewal or once in three years whichever is earlier the rent should be revised. But before revising rent, a notice should be issued to the lessee." Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the impugned order is liable to be interfered with. 4. The respondents have filed counter affidavit admitting that by G.O.Ms.No.799, Revenue Department, dated 30.05.1989, the land in question was given to the petitioner on lease for 12 years under Revenue Standing Order 24-A, on condition that 7% lease amount should be collected in two times land value with local cess, local cess surcharge and the lease amount should be fixed every three years at the rate of current market value. As per the orders of the fourth respondent, the petitioner was requested by the fifth respondent to remit the lease amount, vide letter dated 13.07.2001 and several reminders have also been sent to the petitioner and the petitioner has belatedly remitted the lease amount on 31.07.2002. When the assignment proposal on the request of the petitioner was sent to the Government through the second respondent, vide District Revenue Officer's letter dated 30.09.2001, and certain further particulars were called for by the second respondent, the report was sent by the third respondent. At this stage, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.22115 of 2003 before this Court and this Court directed that within 12 weeks period, the Government should pass necessary orders on the request of the petitioner, according to eligibility, subsequent to which, the petitioner's request was considered and as per the policy decision already taken by the Government, the request of the petitioner was rejected, which is the subject matter of the present Writ Petition. 5. 5. It is further stated by the respondents in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.30,366/- as lease amount for three years from 1989 to 1992 only and he has not paid the lease amount upto 22.08.2002. As per the said G.O. dated 30.05.1989, the Accountant General's audit party noted that the balance lease amount should be collected from the petitioner for the period from 5/1992 to 4/2002, as detailed below: Sl. No. Period Market Value Percentage Annual Lease Amount L.C. 100% LCS 500% Total amount 1 5/92 - 4/95 74469 7% 10426 10426 52130=7298x3 218946 2 5/95 - 4/98 84235 7% 11793 11793 58965=82551x3 247653 3 5/98 - 4/01 110106 2% 2002 2002 10010=14014x3 42042 4 5/01 - 4/02 112399 2% 2248 2248 11240=15736x1 15736 Total 524377 Amount to be paid for period from 5/89 to 4/92 Rs.30,366/- ordinary interest at 12% for the belated payment of 10 years Rs.36,440/- Total Rs.76,806/- Net amount to be paid by the petitioner (Rs.5,24,377 + Rs.76,806/-) Rs.6,01,183/- 6. Based on the above audit report, the petitioner was asked to remit the amount of Rs.6,01,183/-. It is further stated in the counter that in the petition, dated 29.06.2003, the petitioner informed that he is prepared to pay the lease amount fixed by the Government as per G.O.Ms.No.799, Revenue Department, dated 30.05.1989 and that he has requested that the land concerned should be classified as 'assessed waste' and the lease deed should also be registered before the payment of lease amount. It is further stated that the petitioner has filed O.S.No.138 of 2003 before the District Munsif Court, Sivakasi, which is still pending. According to the respondents, the policy decision has been taken by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.2318, Revenue Department, dated 14.12.1989, as per which, assignment cannot be given for the land S.No.556 (0.28 Acre) classified as Oorani Poramboke to the petitioner, which is the subject matter of the suit. Having enjoyed the Government property for more than ten years, the petitioner should not remain without paying a single pie and he is liable to pay the lease amount for the above land as fixed by the Accountant General's audit party, which is based on the said G.O.Ms.No.799, dated 30.05.1989. 7. Having enjoyed the Government property for more than ten years, the petitioner should not remain without paying a single pie and he is liable to pay the lease amount for the above land as fixed by the Accountant General's audit party, which is based on the said G.O.Ms.No.799, dated 30.05.1989. 7. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been paying the amount and produced the details in page 45 of the additional typed set of papers, dated 11.09.2017 filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in which, statement (working sheet on lease demand) is produced in respect of the amount said to have been paid by the petitioner, but the actual date on which such payments had been made, is not given in the said page 45. When this Court posed a question as to when the amount was actually paid by the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the interim order of this Court, dated 07.08.2003 in W.P.M.P.No.27388 of 2003, the petitioner started paying the amount as per the lease agreement entered in 1989. This Court passed the interim order on the basis that the petitioner was paying the existing amount of lease till the date of the interim order and directed him to continue to pay the lease amount as per the proceedings, dated 09.06.2001. But unfortunately, the petitioner has not paid a single pie after the expiry of the block period of three years. The contention that the petitioner has been paying the lease amount as per the interim order of this Court, can be construed only prospective and admittedly, he has not paid a single pie for the past period till the date of passing of the said interim order of this Court, dated 07.08.2003. 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that BSO 24-A as discussed supra, will be applicable only to Companies, may not be correct, but it applies even to individuals. But that cannot be a ground to grant the relief sought for in this Writ Petition. Firstly, the period of lease is already over. Secondly, the petitioner was enjoying the property all along without paying a single pie after the expiry of the first block period till the interim order of this Court, dated 07.08.2003. But that cannot be a ground to grant the relief sought for in this Writ Petition. Firstly, the period of lease is already over. Secondly, the petitioner was enjoying the property all along without paying a single pie after the expiry of the first block period till the interim order of this Court, dated 07.08.2003. The interim order passed by this Court cannot be taken advantage of by the petitioner for payment of arrears retrospectively and in all fairness, to show his bona-fides, the petitioner should have paid the lease amount periodically. The lease period was initially granted for a period of 12 years, but there is no justification on the part of the petitioner in not paying a single pie after the period of three years. 9. This Court finds much force in the contentions of the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. Further, it is made clear that the place in question, namely Oorani Poramboke, cannot be converted into land. The petitioner has also not paid the lease amount even as per the interim order dated 07.08.2003. The learned counsel for the petitioner tried to draw the attention of this Court to page 25 of the said additional typed set of papers to show that the lease amount has been paid and as per the said page 25, the amount has been paid on 02.01.2015, that too, much later than the interim order of this Court and not at the expiry of each block period. Admittedly, the petitioner has not paid a single pie after the expiry of the block period till the date of the said interim order of this Court. The petitioner is trying to play fraud not only on the Government, but also on the Court and trying to point out that he has been paying the lease amount. The petitioner has not even paid a single pie for the subsequent block period immediately after expiry of the first block period. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) payable by the petitioner to the charity-institution, namely "The Banyan Adaikalam", 6th Main Road, Mogappair Eri Scheme, Mogappair West, Chennai-600 037 (Tel: 044-26530504, 26530599). The cost shall be paid within 30 days (thirty) days.