S.Ganesan Vs. Dist. Collector, Tiruchirapalli
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 1058 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18789 of 2000)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18789 of 2000)
Petitioner: S.Ganesan
Respondent: Dist. Collector, Tiruchirapalli
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 1058 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18789 of 2000)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18789 of 2000)
Judges: S.RAJENDRA BABU & P.VENKATARAMA REDDI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jun 02, 2002
Head Note:
MINES AND MINERALS
Constitution
Articles 226, 136 – Lease to quarry sand jelly – Highest bidder depositing lease money for one year – Unsuccessful bidder filing writ and obtaining stage – Meanwhile bid confirmed – Writ later dismissed as infructuous and also due to expiry of lease period – Highest bidder applying for lease in his favour – Refusal. Held that in view of V. Karnal Durai’s case, lease be granted to him but on deposit of 50% amount of lease money for 3 years and on new rules. (Para 6)
Cases Reffered:
1. V.Karnal Durai vs. District Collector, Tuticorin and Anr. (JT 1999 (8) SC 301) (Para 6)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Application for impleadment filed by Mr. V.Pannerselvam is on the basis that he has participated in the public auction held on 20.6.2000 and had offered his bid in respect of lease-hold rights to quarry sand jelly in S.No. 61 in Manamedu village, Tiruchi district which was accepted, but before the same could be confirmed, a writ petition was filed before the High Court and that petition having been allowed, the matter was carried in appeal and that appeal is said to be pending consideration. His case is that the same subject matter is involved in this civil appeal.
2. But a letter has been placed before this Court addressed by the deputy director (G&M), Tiruchirapalli dated 4.2.2002 to the effect that the land in respect of which this appeal is concerned is block no. 2 in S.F.No. 61, Cauvery river Manamedu village measuring 10 hectares and has not been brought for subsequent tender or auction sale as the matter is seized of by this Court. If that is so, there is no cause for the applicant in I.A.no. 2 to complain nor he can be brought on record in these proceedings. Application for impleadment is, therefore, rejected.
3. Leave granted.
4. A notification was issued on 12.8.1996 calling for tenders for grant of leasehold rights to quarry sand jelly in S.F.no. 61 in Manamedu village, Tiruchi district in the State of Tamil Nadu for a period of three years from 1.4.1996 to 31.3.1999. The appellant before us was the highest bidder offering an amount of Rs. 19 lakhs per year and he deposited Rs. 19 lakhs towards the 1st year.
5. One Murugesan, an unsuccessful bidder, filed writ petition no. 14138/1996 before the High Court in which an interim injunction was granted restraining the respondent from granting the lease. In the meanwhile the bid in favour of the appellant was confirmed. The learned single judge subsequently dismissed the writ petition on 29.10.1999 having become infructuous because the lease period for which the lease was granted itself had expired. Thereafter, the appellant made a representation to the state government to direct the grant of leasehold rights as there was no impediment in the way of the government. The appellant particularly relied upon rule 8-A which had been amended enabling the date of commencement of the period for which the quarrying lease is granted, to be the date on which the lease deed is executed. The collector rejected the representation on the basis that the new rules had come into force and under the new rules, lease could not be granted in favour of the appellant. The appellant, therefore, filed a writ petition before the High Court unsuccessfully and the matter was carried in writ appeal which also met with the same fate and, therefore, he has come before us by way of special leave.
6. In somewhat identical circumstances when a peculiar situation arose, this Court in V.Karnal Durai vs. District Collector, Tuticorin and Anr. (JT 1999 (8) SC 301 = (1999) 1 SCC 475) taking note of the fact that for no fault of the appellant the lease period having expired, the lease could not be granted in his favour and, therefore, directed grant of lease of the land in question on appropriate terms. In this matter, land is still available for being leased as per letter of the deputy director (G&M), Tiruchirapalli to which we have adverted to earlier. In the circumstances arising in this case, we think the order made by the High Court in the writ petition and in the writ appeal should be set aside and the writ be allowed as was done in V.Karnal Durai’s case but subject to the condition that the appellant shall make further payment in respect of the lease amount per year by enhancing the same by 50% of the earlier bid. This amount is fixed by us taking note of the fact that the money paid by the appellant has been with the respondent for more than a period of 5 years. All other terms shall be governed by the new rules. The department shall now give reasonable time to the appellant to deposit the amount of lease for the entire period of 3 years which shall not be less than four weeks from today.
7. The appeal shall stand allowed accordingly. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
1. Application for impleadment filed by Mr. V.Pannerselvam is on the basis that he has participated in the public auction held on 20.6.2000 and had offered his bid in respect of lease-hold rights to quarry sand jelly in S.No. 61 in Manamedu village, Tiruchi district which was accepted, but before the same could be confirmed, a writ petition was filed before the High Court and that petition having been allowed, the matter was carried in appeal and that appeal is said to be pending consideration. His case is that the same subject matter is involved in this civil appeal.
2. But a letter has been placed before this Court addressed by the deputy director (G&M), Tiruchirapalli dated 4.2.2002 to the effect that the land in respect of which this appeal is concerned is block no. 2 in S.F.No. 61, Cauvery river Manamedu village measuring 10 hectares and has not been brought for subsequent tender or auction sale as the matter is seized of by this Court. If that is so, there is no cause for the applicant in I.A.no. 2 to complain nor he can be brought on record in these proceedings. Application for impleadment is, therefore, rejected.
3. Leave granted.
4. A notification was issued on 12.8.1996 calling for tenders for grant of leasehold rights to quarry sand jelly in S.F.no. 61 in Manamedu village, Tiruchi district in the State of Tamil Nadu for a period of three years from 1.4.1996 to 31.3.1999. The appellant before us was the highest bidder offering an amount of Rs. 19 lakhs per year and he deposited Rs. 19 lakhs towards the 1st year.
5. One Murugesan, an unsuccessful bidder, filed writ petition no. 14138/1996 before the High Court in which an interim injunction was granted restraining the respondent from granting the lease. In the meanwhile the bid in favour of the appellant was confirmed. The learned single judge subsequently dismissed the writ petition on 29.10.1999 having become infructuous because the lease period for which the lease was granted itself had expired. Thereafter, the appellant made a representation to the state government to direct the grant of leasehold rights as there was no impediment in the way of the government. The appellant particularly relied upon rule 8-A which had been amended enabling the date of commencement of the period for which the quarrying lease is granted, to be the date on which the lease deed is executed. The collector rejected the representation on the basis that the new rules had come into force and under the new rules, lease could not be granted in favour of the appellant. The appellant, therefore, filed a writ petition before the High Court unsuccessfully and the matter was carried in writ appeal which also met with the same fate and, therefore, he has come before us by way of special leave.
6. In somewhat identical circumstances when a peculiar situation arose, this Court in V.Karnal Durai vs. District Collector, Tuticorin and Anr. (JT 1999 (8) SC 301 = (1999) 1 SCC 475) taking note of the fact that for no fault of the appellant the lease period having expired, the lease could not be granted in his favour and, therefore, directed grant of lease of the land in question on appropriate terms. In this matter, land is still available for being leased as per letter of the deputy director (G&M), Tiruchirapalli to which we have adverted to earlier. In the circumstances arising in this case, we think the order made by the High Court in the writ petition and in the writ appeal should be set aside and the writ be allowed as was done in V.Karnal Durai’s case but subject to the condition that the appellant shall make further payment in respect of the lease amount per year by enhancing the same by 50% of the earlier bid. This amount is fixed by us taking note of the fact that the money paid by the appellant has been with the respondent for more than a period of 5 years. All other terms shall be governed by the new rules. The department shall now give reasonable time to the appellant to deposit the amount of lease for the entire period of 3 years which shall not be less than four weeks from today.
7. The appeal shall stand allowed accordingly. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
