Recovery of penalties after a significant delay is barred by limitation, and provisions for quarrying for domestic purposes exempt from penalties.

ORDER :

P.T. Asha, J.

This Writ Petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

“Calling for the record pertaining to order no. Na.Ka. NO.6959/ 2004.p, dated 04.04.2005 of the 2nd respondent and consequential order bearing no. ROC. NO.2448/ 2024/A2 the third respondent dated 13.11.2024 and quash the same.”

2. The petitioner would submit that he is the owner of the agricultural land comprised in Survey No.118/1C (subject property) measuring an extent of 2.26.0 hectares, situate at Chinnamanali Village, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District. The subject property was bequeathed in favour of the petitioner by his grandmother by way of a registered Will dated 20.09.2018. The petitioner’s grandmother, Mrs. Kolandayee, had originally purchased the subject property by way of a registered Sale Deed dated 10.09.1962.

3.The petitioner would further submit that on 08.10.2004, the 2nd respondent had issued a notice to the petitioner’s grandmother, calling upon her to explain the alleged quarrying of stones (6411 units) from her land without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority. Subsequently, on 09.02.2005, the 2nd respondent had issued another notice requiring her to appear for a personal hearing on 21.02.2005. On the said date, the petitioner’s mother appeared before the 2nd respondent and filed a written submission denying the allegation of illegal quarrying of stones from the subject property. However, without properly considering her explanation, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order imposing a penalty of Rs.35,90,160/-.

4.After a lapse of 19 years from the passing of the said order, the 3rd respondent, in November 2023, directed the petitioner’s grandmother to pay the aforesaid penalty amount on or before 24.01.2023, failing which appropriate action would be taken. In the meantime, the petitioner’s grandmother had executed a Will dated 20.09.2019, bequeathing her property in favour of the petitioner, and subsequently passed away on 26.05.2021.

5. The petitioner would further submit that on 24.11.2023, he had filed his explanation to the notice issued by the 3rd respondent, reiterating the deposition made by his grandmother on 21.02.2005, i.e. when the petitioner’s grandmother had purchased the property, the mining pits already existed, and she had only utilized the rainwater accumulated therein for agricultural purposes, without ever using or removing stones. He therefore requested that the proceedings be dropped.

6. Despite this, on 03.06.2024, the 3rd respondent had issued a notice in the name of the petitioner’s late grandmother, directing payment of the penalty within 30 days. Thereafter, on 20.08.2024, a Demand Notice was issued to the petitioner’s late grandmother, demanding payment of Rs.35,90,160/- with interest at 24% per annum, failing which the subject property would be brought to auction. Upon receipt of the said notice, the petitioner, being the present owner of the property, once again submitted a detailed reply on 11.09.2024, denying the allegation of illegal quarrying and requesting that the proceedings be dropped. However, without considering his reply, the 3rd respondent passed the impugned order in the form of a notice of attachment of immovable property, issued in the name of the petitioner’s late grandmother, directing payment of Rs.35,90,160/- with interest within 15 days.

7. In the said impugned notice, the 3rd respondent not only included the petitioner’s property bearing S.No.118/1C but also included the property of his father bearing S.No.28/1A. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Hon’ble Court.

8. The 3rd respondent had filed a counter affidavit denying the contentions raised by the pe