Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 3458
High Court of Judicature at Madras
B. RAJENDRAN, J.
K. Dhanasekar
Versus
District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram
W.P.No. 10562 of 2013 & M.P.No. 1 of 2013
Decided on: 24-09-2014
For the Petitioner:V. Sanjeevi, Advocate.
For the Respondents: K.V. Dhanapalan, Additional Government Pleader.
The main legal point established is that if a petitioner is prevented from utilizing the leasehold land due to a reasonable cause and not due to his fault, the court can issue appropriate directions or the petitioner is entitled to compensation for the period during which he could not utilize the leasehold land.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Quarrying Lease Extension - Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules - Rule 8(1) - Sections 147, 148, 341, 385, 481, 506(ii) of IPC, Sections 2 and 3 of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damages and Loss) Act - Writ Petition seeking extension of lease for 47 days due to prevention from quarrying operations - Court directed respondent to consider extension of lease period for 47 days and pass orders within two months.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a Mandamus to direct the respondent to permit him to carry out stone quarrying for 47 days, during which he was prevented from quarrying operations due to criminal activities by third parties. The petitioner had a 10-year lease under Rule 8(1) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules and sought compensation for the 47 days of prevented quarrying.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was prevented from quarrying for 47 days and directed the respondent to consider the extension of the lease period for 47 days and pass orders within two months.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to an extension of the lease for the 47 days during which he was prevented from quarrying due to criminal activities by third parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that if a petitioner is prevented from carrying out quarrying operations due to a reasonable cause and not due to his fault, the court can issue appropriate directions or the petitioner is entitled to compensation for the period during which he could not utilize the leasehold land.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation for extension of lease for 47 days, examine the entitlement, and pass orders within two months.
1. The petitioner seeks for issuance of a Mandamus to direct the respondent to permit him to carry out stone quarrying for a period of 47 days, being the period during which he could not carry out the quarrying operations.
2. The petitioner was granted lease for a period of 10 years under Rule 8 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, as per District Gazzette No.31 dated 19.12.2002. The petitioner also paid the entire lease amount of Rs.65 lakhs. As per the proceedings dated 09.01.2003, the petitioner was permitted to carry out the quarrying operation for a period of ten years commencing from 18.04.2003 to 17.04.2013. The petitioner also executed a lease agreement. While the petitioner was carrying out the quarrying operation, on 27.07.2008, certain third parties in Chettipunniyam Village indulged in criminal activities and dug the road by using JCB machines, thereby prevented the vehicles of the petitioner from entering into the lease hold area. Notwithstanding the same, the third parties have also threatened the workers, who were quarrying in the site, with the result, the quarrying operations were completely stopped. The petitioner has therefore given a complaint to the Maraimalai Nagar Police Station based on which a case in Crime No. 470 of 2008 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 385, 481 and 506(ii) of IPC read with Sections 2 and 3 of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damages and Loss) Act. The petitioner also made a representation dated 31.07.2008 to the respondent herein requesting to take appropriate action against the third parties so as to enable him to carry on the quarrying operations. The respondent, in his proceedings dated 08.08.2008, instructed the Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram to look into the matter by taking action against the persons concerned so as to enable the petitioner to carry on the quarrying operation. The Revenue Divisional Officer also, in his proceedings dated 09.08.2008 informed the Inspector of Police, Maraimalai Nagar Police Station that right to use the panchayat road cannot be interfered with by any one or to stop the vehicles plying there carrying minerals from government approved quarrying site. In and by the said letter dated 09.08.2008, the Revenue Divisional Officer also directed the Inspector of Police, Maraimalai Nagar to take appropriate action against the offenders. Subsequently, on 04.09.2008, a peace committee meeting was held which was attended by the Sub-Collector, Chengalpattu along with the officials from the Directorate of Geology and Mining and also the Police Authorities. In the meeting, it was resolved that the petitioner must be permitted to carry out the quarrying operation without any disturbance. Accordingly, the petitioner resumed the quarrying operation on 05.09.2008. Thus, from 28.07.2008 to 04.09.2008, for about 47 days, the petitioner could not carry out the quarrying operation, which, according to the petitioner, cannot be attributed due to his fault, however, he was unreasonably prevented from carrying out the quarrying operation.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that admittedly, out of the 10 years period, the petitioner was reasonably prevented from carrying out the quarrying operations for 47 days and only after the intervention by the respondent and other officials, he could resume the quarrying operation from 05.09.2008. The petitioner also invited the attention of the respondent by sending a representation dated 03.04.2013 requesting to permit him to continue the quarrying operation for 47 days, but so far no order has been passed. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had invested huge amount in the quarrying operation and in view of the fact that he could not carry out the quarrying operation for 47 days, he sustained heavy loss. Therefore, the respondent is duty bound to compensate the petitioner by permitting him to carry o
