BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI W.A(MD)No.1330 of 2021 and C.M.P(MD)No.5539 of 2021

1.The State represented by The Secretary, Industries Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

2.The District Collector, Perambalur District, Perambalur. ... Appellants /

Respondents Vs.

V.Velmurugan ... Respondent /

Petitioner Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to allow this Writ Appeal by setting aside the order dated 28.02.2020 in W.P(MD)No.

2117 of 2020 passed by the learned single Judge.

For Appellants : Mr.R.Baskaran Additional Government Pleader For Respondents : Mr.Sricharan Rangarajan Senior Counsel

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by G.R.Swaminathan J.)

The Government has filed this intra-court appeal challenging the order dated 28.02.2020 passed by the learned single Judge allowing W.P(MD)No.2117 of 2020 filed by the respondent herein (herein after referred as “the writ petitioner”).

2.The writ petitioner submitted an application on 23.02.1996 seeking grant of mining lease for limestone over the petition mentioned land. This application was formally approved at the District Level and forwarded to the Director of Geology and Mining. On 28.06.1996, the Directorate of Geology and Mining approved the grant of lease and forwarded the same to the State Government. The State Government, in turn, forwarded the papers to the Central Government for approval. The Central Government granted approval vide order dated 16.12.1998. 3.Even though the Central Government had granted approval and all that remained was only formal execution of the lease deed, nothing transpired thereafter. In these circumstances, the writ petitioner herein filed W.P(MD)No.10541 of 2000. Vide order dated 27.06.2000, this Court directed the Government of Tamil Nadu to dispose of the writ petitioner's application on merits. Even though such a specific direction was given, the Government did not act in the matter. Hence, Cont P(MD)No.114 of 2005 was filed.

4.At this stage, one Pagutharivu instituted O.S.No.324 of 2005 against the District Collector, Perambalur and other revenue officials seeking permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It is interesting to note that it was the suit property in respect of which the application was submitted by the writ petitioner and which was approved by the authorities also.

5.In these circumstances, the applicant applied for extension of timeline for execution of the lease deed by representation dated 07.11.2005. The Government vide letter dated 21.11.2005 sought a detailed report from the District authorities concerned. A detailed report was submitted to the Government and extension of timeline for execution of lease deed was also sought. The suit eventually came to be dismissed for default only on 14.03.2012. Thereafter, vide letter dated 03.05.2012, the writ petitioner wrote to the District Collector seeking execution of the lease deed. Reminders were sent on 30.06.2014 and 01.07.2014. In the meanwhile, the Mines and Minerals Act, 1957 came to be amended with effect from 12.01.2015.

6.The question that arose was whether, in view of this amendment, the lease deed could still be executed in favour of the writ petitioner. The District Collector, Perambalur vide letter dated 06.01.2020 wrote to the Government seeking appropriate clarification and orders in the matter. Since the matter had been hanging fire for over a quarter of century, the writ petitioner filed W.P(MD)No.2117 of 2020. The learned single Judge vide order dated 28.02.2020 allowed the same by applying the ratio laid down in AIR 1967 SC 964 (M/s.Gujarat Pottery Works Private Limited Vs B.P.Sood & Others) and the decision reported in 2017 (2) SCC 125 (Bhushan Power and Steel Limited Vs S.L.Seal). Aggrieved by the same, this writ appeal has been filed.

7.T