ORDER : (V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.) The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to extend the lease period for cutting juliflora Trees (seemai karuvelam) by a further period of three months on account of non-operation. 2. The petitioner is a contractor, with respect to cutting and removal of 'seemai karuvelam' trees. A direction was given by a Bench of this Court to all District Collectors within the jurisdiction of this Seat to remove 'seemai karuvelam' trees. Consequent there to, the third respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer at Sivagangai District conducted a public auction for cutting and removing 'seemai karuvelam' trees in Kanoor Kanmai comprised in S.No.71 situated in Kannoor Village, Sivagangai District. 3. The public auction took place on 24.03.2017. The petitioner offered to pay a sum of Rs.8,27,320/-. He was the successful bidder. The auction was confirmed in his favour by the third respondent and a cutting order was issued by him. There was a specific direction given in the order that the process must be completed by 15.06.2017. 4. When the process was underway, the officials belonging to the Forest Department of Sivagangai District objected to the petitioner cutting and removing 'seemai karuvelam' trees. According to them, the auction had been conducted not only for the areas under the control of the Revenue Department, but also of the Forest Department. Therefore, they ordered that while the petitioner was free to remove the trees which are growing in the area under the control of Revenue Department, he cannot remove the tress which are situated over area under the control of the Forest Department. 5. This constrained the petitioner to file a writ petition before this Court in W.P.(MD)No.24050 of 2017 against the Forest Department. He sought an injunction restraining the Forest Department from interfering with his right to cut and remove the trees. This Court also granted the said order. 6. On account of the fact that the petitioner was prevented by the Forest Department from cutting and removing the 'seemai karuvelam' trees, he approached the third respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer at Sivagangai seeking an extension. Considering the request made by the petitioner, the third respondent also granted an extension till 31.01.2018. By that time, the interim order was granted by this Court restraining the Forest Authorities from interfering with his right to cut and remove the trees, 31.01.2018 had gone by. Considering the request made by the petitioner, the third respondent also granted an extension till 31.01.2018. By that time, the interim order was granted by this Court restraining the Forest Authorities from interfering with his right to cut and remove the trees, 31.01.2018 had gone by. Hence, the writ petition for the aforesaid reliefs. 7. This writ petition was entertained and posted before the Special Bench dealing with 'seemai karuvelam' trees. The Bench took a view that this matter has to be de-tagged and posted before the Single Bench. Accordingly, an order was passed on 08.06.2022. Hence, the matter is back before this Court for passing orders on the writ petition. 8. I heard Mr.Sricharan Rangarajan, learned senior counsel for Mr.Ramsundar Vijayaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.G.Suriyananth, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 4. 9. Mr.Sricharan Rangarajan, relies upon a recent Judgement of this Court in R.Paulsamy vs. 1.The District Collector, O/o.the Collectorate Complex, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District in W.P.(MD)No.24419 of 2022 dated 18.10.2023 and states that the petitioner herein is similarly situated as the petitioner therein. He urges that this Court, taking into consideration that the Government had extended the period for another Contractor, namely, Selvan, S/o.Mayandi Thevar, favourably considered the request for extension to the petitioner therein by a period of three months. He states that a similar order can be passed in this case too. 10. Mr.G.Suriyananth, has produced instructions from the Forest Department. According to the Forest Department, the total extent available in the Kanoor Kanmai is 425.50.5 hectares. Out of this extent, 251.38 hectares belongs to the Forest Department. He urges that a decision has been taken by the District Forest Officer, Sivagangai District to conduct a separate auction for 'seemai karuvelam' trees growing over the extent under the control of the Forest Officer. Hence, he pleads that an order be passed extending time confining the area under the control of Revenue Department, without affecting, the right of the Forest Department. 11. I have carefully considered the submissions on both sides. I have gone through the records. 12. The fact that the petitioner is a successful bidder is not in dispute. Hence, he pleads that an order be passed extending time confining the area under the control of Revenue Department, without affecting, the right of the Forest Department. 11. I have carefully considered the submissions on both sides. I have gone through the records. 12. The fact that the petitioner is a successful bidder is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had been prevented from taking full advantage of the auction confirmation order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai District permitting him to cut and remove 'seemai karuvelam' trees in Kanoor Kanmai. This was on account of the objection that had been raised by the Forest Department. This Court came to the rescue of the writ petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.24050 of 2017 and held that the petitioner is entitled to cut and remove the 'seemai karuvelam' trees over the entire extent allotted to him by the third respondent. 13. If I were to agree with Mr.G.Suryananth and grant the petitioner the benefit of extension of three months, only over the area in the Kanoor Kanmai under the control of the Revenue Department, I will be literally re-writing the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.24050 of 2017. 14. The petitioner's right to cut and remove the trees is on account of the order passed by the Revenue Department. It is for the sake of convenience that the State of Tamil Nadu operates through several Departments. The order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, though he is an authority belonging to the Revenue Department, has to be construed as an order issued by the State permitting the petitioner to cut and remove the trees. Due to a dispute between the Revenue and Forest Departments, the petitioner, who had bonafidely participated in an auction and had obtained a right, cannot be deprived of the same. 15. Further, the plea of Mr.G.Suryananth is that, much water has passed post 31.01.2018 and if the petitioner was permitted three months extension of time today, it would amount to unjust enrichment. The solution to the issue presented by Mr.Sricharan Rangarajan and Mr.G.Suryananth can be easily arrived at. Both their rights can be balanced. 16. 15. Further, the plea of Mr.G.Suryananth is that, much water has passed post 31.01.2018 and if the petitioner was permitted three months extension of time today, it would amount to unjust enrichment. The solution to the issue presented by Mr.Sricharan Rangarajan and Mr.G.Suryananth can be easily arrived at. Both their rights can be balanced. 16. In the light of the above observations, I pass the following directions:- (i) The Revenue Division Officer, Sivagangai District shall assess the amount that has to be paid by the petitioner for the additional and further growth of trees that has taken place between 2018 to till date the order is uploaded. (ii) This exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iii) Prior to reassessing the value over the extent of 251.38 hectares of the forest area under the control of the Forest Department, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall consult the District Forest Officer, Sivagangai District and fix the figure that the Forest Department is entitled to receive. (iv) If the District Forest Officer does not give the figure within the time period fixed by this Court, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai District is free to fix the figure and proceed further. (v) The Revenue Divisional Officer shall intimate the writ petitioner about the total amount that he has to pay for cutting and removing the trees over the entire extent of 425.50.5 hectares. (vi) He shall grant the petitioner four weeks time to pay the amount. (vii) In case, the petitioner pays the amount within a period of four weeks, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall grant extension by a further period of three months. (viii) In case, the petitioner does not pay the amount within the said period, the Revenue and Forest Departments are free to bring the right to cut the trees for auction without further notice of this Court. 17. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.