Madras High Court
P.Murugesan vs The District Collector on 29 April, 2024
Author: N.Seshasayee
Bench: N. Seshasayee
W.A.(MD) No.622 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 29.04.2024
CORAM
JUSTICE N. SESHASAYEE
and
JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI
W.A.(MD) No.622 of 2017
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.5155 of 2017
1.P.Murugesan
2.P.K.Ravichandran ... Appellants/Petitioners
Vs.
The District Collector,
Pudukottai District,
Pudukottai. ... Respondent/Respondent
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated
03.03.2017 in W.P.(MD) No.3159 of 2010.
For Appellants : Mr.E.K.Kumaresan
___________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.622 of 2017
For Respondent : Mr.R.Baskaran
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.N.Muthuvijayan
Special Government Pleade
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.Seshasayee, J.)
This appeal is directed against an order of the learned Single Judge of this
Court dated 03.03.2017 in W.P.(MD) No.3159 of 2010.
2. The facts are as below:
(a) On 17.08.2002, the appellants herein were granted permission to
quarry granite for 20 years in their land in S.No.297/2A of
Ammachatram Village, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukottai District. As per the
boundary description to this block of land, it is seen, boundary on the
west by S.No.297/1 and on north inter alia by S.Nos.297/1 and 297/3,
the document styled as a “lease agreement” stipulates specifically that
the appellants herein shall not encroach into the Government
poramboke land in S.Nos.297/1 and 297/3. While so, on 12.02.2008,
the Deputy Director of Geology and Mining, had issued a show cause
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
notice, wherein it was alleged that the appellants have illicitly quarried
in S.No.297/3 (which forms the northern boundary of S.No.297/2A in
relation to which permission was accorded for quarrying granite) to an
extent of 3906 m3 out of total quarry granite of 19530 m3 and that illicit
quarrying of granite in S.No.297/3 came to light during an inspection
by the authorities between 03.12.2007 and 06.12.2007;
(b) The appellants responded to the same with their communication dated
28.02.2008, wherein, they had required the authorities to furnish them
a list of documents, which inter alia included the inspection report of
the authorities concerned. Again on 03.03.2008, they reiterated the
same vide another communication of them;
(c) On 15.05.2008, the authorities furnished whatever materials or
information, which the appellants required;
(d) Thereafter on 27.05.2008 the appellants offered their explanation to the
show cause notice. In their explanation, they had essentially alleged:
(a) that no notice of inspection was given at the time of inspection;
(b) that the appellants were not present at the time of inspection; and
(c) that they had never quarried in S.No.297/3.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. They literally reiterated the above stance of theirs in a subsequent
communication dated 11.07.2008. Thereafter, the appellants were served with
notices for participating in an enquiry, which were scheduled to take place on
16.02.2009 and 20.04.2009, but they did not. Again a notice was issued on
them to participate in an enquiry that was scheduled to take place on
04.05.2009. The appellants did participate through their representative and
offered their explanation. The core contention taken in this explanation is that
the respondents herein ought to first establish that the location of the pits in
relation to which the illicit quarrying of granite was alleged must be
established and also age of the pit. This, according to the appellants, is a sine
qua non for holding an enquiry consistent with the principles of natural
justice and they again reiterated that they have not engaged in illicit
quarrying of granite as alleged in the show cause notice.
4. As regards the quantity of clear granite as assessed to have been illicitly
quarried, they explain that the granite is of poor quality, that it would be more
impossible to obtain 20% of saleable granite.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. The District Collector, vide his proceedings dated 31.01.2010 rejected the
explanations offered by the appellants, assessed the loss to the State at
Rs.8,11,62,774/- and directed the appellants to deposit the same within 15
days.
6. The appellants would now promptly approach this Court with this writ
petition in W.P.(MD) No.3159 of 2010 before the authorities and literally
have assumed the stands that they have already assumed before the passing of
the impugned order.
7. The learned Single Judge, in his order, had rejected the appellants'
contention essentially on two grounds:
(a) That the appellants have alternate remedies more so when the
authorities have complied with the principles of natural justice fully;
and
(b) That in the topo sketch produced by the authorities, number of hearings
showed that the poramboke land in S.No.297/3 is landlocked on all
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
sides by the patta land of the appellants and that the aforesaid
poramboke land could not be accessed except by crossing over the
lands of the appellants and hence, any illicit quarrying by a third party
could not be possible without the knowledge of the appellants.
8. Heard both sides.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants made valiant effort to persuade this
Court to examine the conflict on facts as shared between the parties. Here is
the scenario where the respondents allege that there is illicit quarrying in a
piece of alleged landlocked poramboke land to which access established only
through the property of the appellants and on the other hand, there is a denial
of this allegation by these appellants that there has never been any illicit
quarrying. They also wanted to establish it through certain documents. Now,
notwithstanding certain orders which the previous Bench has directed the
respondent to produce, examining them will still involve an investigation on
facts. Now the topo sketch appeared to have been sought essentially to
confirm whether the poramboke land in question is landlocked. If it is
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
landlocked, then the appellants may have a greater task on their own to
convince how someone had entered the piece of poramboke land without
their notice. That itself is an aspect on facts. If the poramboke property in
question is not landlocked, even then whether there was actual quarrying or
whether there is preponderating probability that the appellants had engaged in
illicit quarrying etc., would be a question on fact, and so far as the calculating
penalty is concerned, whether the actual quantity that could be obtained on
quarrying is again an aspect on fact.
10. It is hence appropriate for the appellants to pursue their challenge to the
order of the District Collector under Rule 36-C(2) of the Tamil Nadu Minor
Mineral Concession Rules, 1959.
11. It may have to be underscored here that under Rule 36-C(2) of the said
Rules, an appeal against an order of the District Collector may have to be
preferred to the Director of Geology and Mines within a period of 30 days.
Very apparently, this 30 days time has been lost. But inasmuch as the
appellants have chosen a wrong forum to challenge the said order by
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
preferring both a writ petition as well as a writ appeal, the same has to be
deducted. Now, this Court merely directs the appellants to prefer an appeal
against the order of the District Collector, dated 31.01.2010 within a period
of 30 days from today (29.04.2024), if they are desirous of challenging it and
the Director of Geology and Mines is required to receive the appeal without
any reference to limitation and dispose of the same within a period of four
months thereafter, after affording requisite opportunity to the appellants to
put forward their case.
12. This Writ Appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(N.S.S., J.) (P.V.M., J.)
29.04.2024
Note: Issue order copy by 30.04.2024.
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
ABR
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
The District Collector,
Pudukottai District,
Pudukottai.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N. SESHASAYEE, J.
and
P.VADAMALAI, J.
ABR
29.04.2024
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
