[Cites 20, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

J.Raja vs The District Collector on 24 February, 2026

Author: P.T.Asha

Bench: P.T. Asha

                                                                                       WP No. 36824 of 2024


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED: 24-02-2026

                                                         CORAM

                                      THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

                                             WP No. 36824 of 2024
                                                    AND
                                            WMP NO. 39751 OF 2024
                J.Raja
                S/o.Jayapal,Chinna Manali Village, Tiruchengode
                Taluk, Namakkal District.
                                                                                           ..Petitioner(s)

                                                              Vs

                1. The District Collector
                   Namakkal District.
                2. The Revenue Divisional Officer
                   Revenue Divisional Office, Tiruchengode- 637
                   211, Namakkal District.


                3. The Tahsildar
                   Tahsildar Office, Tiruchengode- 637 211,
                   Namakkal District.


                4. The Assistant Director (mines)
                   Geology And Mining, Namakkal.


                                                                                         ..Respondent(s)



                Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
                praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorari calling for the record pertaining to
                order no. Na.Ka. NO.6959/ 2004.p, dated 04.04.2005 of the 2nd respondent and
                                                                                               __________
                                                                                               Page1 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis              ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 12:05:45 pm )
                                                                                          WP No. 36824 of 2024


                consequential order bearing no.ROC. NO.2448/ 2024/A2 the third respondent
                dated 13.11.2024 and quash the same.

                           For Petitioner(s):      Mr.R.Ramesh


                           For Respondent(s):      Mrs.R.LKarthika, GA for R1 To R4




                                                            ORDER

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.

__________ Page2 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 12:05:45 pm )

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

__________ Page3 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 12:05:45 pm )

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.

__________ Page4 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 12:05:45 pm )

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 petitioner, in which the 3rd respondent would justify

the impugned order by stating that, as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu

Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1959, read with the Tamil Nadu Revenue

Recovery Act, 1864, in case of default in payment of the penalty amount, the

authorities are empowered to attach the properties of the defaulter and the legal

heirs to the extent of the estate inherited by them

9. Heard the rival submission, perused the affidavit, counter affidavit,

typed set of papers and the extant rules.

10. The issues placed for the consideration of this Court are :-

__________ Page5 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 12:05:45 pm )

(a) Whether the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 can

be invoked when admittedly according to the State the stones have been

quarried for domestic use?

(b)Whether Revenue Recovery proceedings can be initiated 19 years after

the order has been passed imposing penalty on the petitioner?

11. To appreciate the above issues it would be necessary to extract the

following Rules from the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959.

“Rule 17 – Quarrying by the Owner :- A registered holder may quarry

free of charge any minor mineral on a small scale for his own use for a specific

bonafide domestic or agricultural purpose, provided that he has no intention of

continuing quarrying operations indefinitely and provided further that the land

is not in any way rendered less fit for cultivation than before.

Rule 18 - [Quarrying on a large scale or for commercial Purposes :- The

quarrying of any mineral on a large scale or for other than bonafide domestic

or agricultural purposes shall be subject to payment of] [seigniorage fee

or dead rent whichever is more and area assessment at such rates as may be

specified from time to time, in APPENDIX - II to these rules:]

__________ Page6 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 12:05:45 pm )

Provided that this rule shall not apply to quarrying for Government or

on behalf of the Government or bonafide public purposes when the

compensation paid to the registered holder therefore does not exceed the

amount required to restore the land to a state fit for cultivation.

Proviso Rule 36(1)- [36. General restrictions in respect of quarrying

operations :- (1) The quarrying permit holder or the lessee or their men shall

not work or carry on or allow to be worked or carried on any mining operations

at or to any point within a distance of 50 metres from any railway line except

with the previous written permission of the Railway administration concerned

or under or beneath any ropeway or any ropeway trestle or station except under

and in accordance with the written permission of the authority owning the

ropeway or from any reservoir, canal or other public works such as public

roads and buildings 2[*****] except with the previous written permission of the

Collector of the district or any other officer authorised by the State Government

in this behalf and otherwise than in accordance with such instructions,

restrictions and conditions, either general or special, which may be attached to

such permission. The said distance of 50 metres shall be measured in the case

of railway, reservoir or canal horizontally from the outer toe of the bank or the

outer edge of the cutting, as the case may be, and in case of building,

horizontally from the plinth thereof. In the case of village roads, no working

shall be carried out within a distance of 10 metres and except with the previous

__________ Page7 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 12:05:45 pm )

permission of the Collector of the District or any other officer duly authorised

by the State Government in this behalf and otherwise than in accordance with

such directions, restrictions and additions, either general or special, which may

be attached to such permission:

[Provided that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the

time being in force or any provision in any lease deed or agreement already

executed under these rules, there shall be no quarrying of sand in any river bed

or adjoining are or any other area which is located within 500 metres radial

distances from the location of any bridge, water supply system, infiltration well

or pumping installation of any of the local bodies or Central or State

Government Department or the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board

head works or any area identified for locating water supply schemes by any of

the above-mentioned Government Departments or other bodies].

Rule 36 A - Penalties: (1) [Whenever any person contravenes the

provisions of [ sub- section (1) and (1-A) of section 4] of the Act in any land,

enhanced seigniorage fee upto a maximum of fifteen times the normal rate

subject to a minimum of [twenty five thousand rupees] shall be charged and

recovered from that person by the District Collector or the District Forest

Officer as the case may be, or in the alternative, he shall liable to be punished

as provided in sub- section (1) of section 21 of the Act.]

__________ Page8 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 12:05:45 pm )

Section 4(1) and 1A of the Mines & Mineral (Development and

Regulations) Act, 1957: Prospecting or mining operations to be under licence

or lease.―(1) [No person shall undertake any reconnaissance, prospecting or

mining operations in any area, except under and in accordance with the terms

and conditions of a reconnaissance permit or of a prospecting licence or, as the

case may be, of a mining lease, granted under this Act and the rules made

thereunder]: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall affect any

prospecting or mining operations undertaken in any area in accordance with

terms and conditions of a prospecting licence or mining lease granted before

the commencement of this Act which is in force at such commencement: 5

[Provided further that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any prospecting

operations undertaken by the Geological Survey of India, the Indian Bureau of

Mines, [the Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research] of the

Department of Atomic Energy of the Central Government, the Directorates of

Mining and Geology of any State Government (by whatever name called), and

the Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited., a Government company within

the meaning of [clause (45) of section 2 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of

2013), and any such entity that may be notified for this purpose by the Central

Government]: [Provided also that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any

mining lease (whether called mining lease mining concession or by any other

name) in force immediately before the commencement of this Act in the Union

territory of Goa, Daman and Diu.] [(1A) No person shall transport or store or __________ Page9 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 12:05:45 pm )

cause to be transported or stored any mineral otherwise than in accordance

with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder.]

12. It would be also necessary to extract the following provisions of the

Revenue Recovery Act as well :-

“Section 25 - Demand to be served prior to attachment of land.-Mode of

service:- Before a Collector, or other officer empowered by the Collector in that

behalf, proceeds to attach the land of the defaulter or buildings thereon, he

shall cause a written demand to be served upon the defaulter, specifying the

amount due, the estate or land in respect of which it is claimed, the name of the

party in arrear, the batta due to the person who shall serve the demand, and the

time allowed for payment, which shall be fixed with reference to the distance

from the land on which the arrear is due to the place at which the money is to

be paid. Such demand shall be served by delivering a copy to the defaulter; or

to some adult male member of his family at his usual place of abode, or to his

authorised agent, or by affixing a copy thereof on some conspicuous part of his

last known residence, or on some conspicuous part of the land about to be

attached.

Section 26 - Procedure when defaulter neglects to pay:- When the amount

due shall not have been paid pursuant to the terms of the demand, and no

arrangement for securing the same shall have been entered into, to the

__________ Page10 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 12:05:45 pm )

satisfaction of the Collector, or other officer empowered by the Collector in that

behalf, he shall proceed to recover the arrear by the attachment and sale of the

defaulter's land in the following manner.

Section 27 - Mode of attachment:-The attachment shall be effected by

affixing a notice thereof to some conspicuous part of the land. The notice shall

set forth that unless the arrear, with [13][penalty] and expenses, be paid within

the date therein mentioned, the land will be brought to sale in due course of

law. The attachment shall be notified by public proclamation on the land, and

by publication of the notice in the District Gazette.”

13. It would also be useful to extract a few dates and events:-

(i) 10.09.1962: Property in question purchased by Petitioner’s

grandmother Kolandayee;

(ii) 08.10.2004: 42 years after the purchase, 2nd respondent issues show

cause notice under Section 36A;

(iii) 09.02.2005: Enquiry notice stating that enquiry would be held on

21.02.2005 at 11 AM;

(iv) 21.02.2005: Explanation of Kolandayee, denying the quarrying and

stating that no inspection of the lands had been done;

__________ Page11 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 12:05:45 pm )

(v) 04.04.2005: Order of the 2nd Respondent;

(vi) -.11.2023: 3rd Respondent’s notice to Kolandayee informing that the

2nd respondent had ordered recovery of the penalty.

(vii) 03.06.2024: Notice to Kolandayee sating that by the proceedings of

1st respondent dated 12.01.2024 and 14.07.2024 to initiate Revenue Recovery

proceedings if the penalty amount of Rs.35,90,160/- is not paid within 30 days.

(viii) 13.11.2024: Notice of sale.

14. A perusal of the order dated 04.04.2005 would reveal that the same

has been passed on account of the fact that the owner of the land Late

Kolandayee had used the stones quarried from the land for the purpose of

putting up a bund and well in her agricultural land. Therefore, even as per the

said order the stones have been used for her own domestic agricultural work.

Further, the order does not spell out as to when Late Kolandayee had quarried

the lands, when the inspection had taken place and how the authorities have

arrived at the quantity of the stone quarried. Rule 17 of the Rules provides that a

“Registered Holder” (persons in whose name the land is registered – Rule 2(8)]

can quarry free of change minor minerals on a small scale for his own bona fide

domestic or agricultural purpose. A reading of Rule 18 further shows that no

seigniorage fee or dead rent is payable in the case of quarrying for bona fide

domestic or agricultural purpose. Rule 36 A which has been invoked by the

__________ Page12 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 12:05:45 pm )

respondents relates to penalties in case of the contravention the provisions of

Section4(1) and (1A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)

Act 1957 relates to prospecting or mining on large scale mining operation.

15. Therefore, the very invocation of the provisions of the Rules is totally

misconceived. The impugned order does not state that the stones were quarried

for large scale operations. The allegations in the impugned order dated

04.04.2005 is that these stones were quarried for domestic/agricultural use

without permission. The registered owner, late Kolandayee in her explanation

has totally denied the quarrying. Therefore, in the light of the above discussions

issue (a) has to be answered against the respondents by holding that the Rules

will not apply to the case of quarrying for domestic/ agricultural purpose.

16. The next issue [though not applicable to the case on hand in view of

the finding in respect of issue (a)] relates to limitation. The order under Rule 36

A of the Rules has been passed on 04.04.2005 and proceedings under the

Revenue Recovery Act has been initiated only in the year 2024. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the judgment reported in the case of State of Kerala and

others vs. V.R.Kalliyanikutty and another – 1999 (3) SCC - 657 was

considering the issue of limitation in respect of proceedings being initiated

__________ Page13 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 12:05:45 pm )

under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, (here in after called as the “Kerala RR

Act”) to recover a debt which is barred by limitation. In that case the

Government of Kerala in exercise of the powers conferred on them under

Section 17 of the Kerala RR Act made the provisions of this Act applicable to

loans given by Bank for agricultural purposes and the loans given by the Kerala

Financial Corporation. The Learned Judges examined the issue as to whether

time barred claims of the State Financial Corporation and the Banks could be

recovered by invoking the provisions of the Kerala RR Act. They discussed the

terms “amount due” and after referring to its dictionary meaning and the

comments appearing for the word “due” held that these words would means

amounts which a creditor has a right to recover thereby excluding time- barred

debts. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the Kerala RR Act would only

provide an alternate mode of recovery, instead of filing a suit, debt is sought to

be recovered by invoking the provisions of the RR Act. Ultimately, the learned

Judges observed as follows :

“18. In the premises under Section 71 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery

Act claims which are time-barred on the date when a requisition is issued under

Section 69(2) of the said Act are not "amounts due" under Section 71 and

cannot be recovered under the said Act. Our conclusion is based on the

interpretation of Section 71 in the light of the provisions of the Kerala Revenue

Recovery Act.”

__________ Page14 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 12:05:45 pm )

17. Therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that where notice for

recovery was issued in respect of a time barred debt the same cannot be

recovered.

18. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the judgment reported in the case

of AK.Nanu and Ors Vs. State of Kerala and others– 1987 KLJ 1486 was also

considering the issue of limitation in respect of proceedings being initiated

under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. The relevant portion of the judgement

is extracted herein below as follows:-

“ 8. In the absence of a provision creating a substantive right to recover

time-barred debts, the Act providing for summary recovery does not avail once

the period prescribed for recovery under the Limitation Act has expired. The

Act only provides for easy recovery, not recovery at any time. Time is

necessarily limited, unless of course the legislature provides to the contrary.

The question in each case is whether the statute in question has created a

substantive right or liability providing, in respect of a debt, a period of

limitation different from what is prescribed under the Limitation Act or has

altogether removed the bar of limitation in respect of such a debt. If the answer

were to be in the affirmative, the banks counsel would be right in his submission

on the point. But we do not read the relevant provisions of the Act creating any

__________ Page15 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 12:05:45 pm )

such right. The Act creates a special procedure, but not a substantive right to

overcome limitation. As stated by the Lahore High Court in Sri Narain Vs.

Union Bank of India MANU/LA/0049/1922 : AIR. 1924 Lahore 53 and cited

with approval by the Privy Council ir Hansraj Gupta V. Dehra Dun Mussourie

Electric Tramway Co. Ltd. MANU/PR/0060/1932 : [1933] 3 Comp Cas 207 :