AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Sathyanarayanan, J.
The appellant is the petitioner in W.P.No. 1428 of 2013 and he filed the said writ petition praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing respondents 1 to 4 from either sanctioning the layout or permitting any construction within the prohibitory distance of 300 meters from his patta land/stone quarry admeasuring 3-52-5 hectares (8-58 1/2 acres) comprised in S.F.Nos. 184/1B, 184/2, 184/3A and 184/3C, 191/1, 3 and 4 situated in Padalur West Village, Kunnam Taluk, Perambalur District. The writ petition after contest, was dismissed on 6.8.2014, and aggrieved by the same, he has filed this writ appeal.
The facts leading to the filing of this writ appeal, have been narrated in detail in the impugned order passed in the writ petition, and therefore, it is unnecessary to repeat the same once again except to state the relevant facts for the purpose of disposal of this writ appeal.
According to the appellant/writ petitioner, the Government of Tamil Nadu has granted stone quarry lease in respect of his above mentioned patta lands for a period of five years and necessary lease agreement was also executed on 22.10.2007, and was registered and the period of lease was between 22.10.2007 and 21.10.2012.
The writ petitioner would further state that during the subsistence of the lease, he was quarrying and transporting blue metal with valid transport permits issued by the Collector of Perambalur District, by paying statutory levies and after the expiry of licence, has also submitted an application for renewal.
It is alleged by the appellant/writ petitioner that after he had put up stone crushing unit in the above mentioned lands, the fifth respondent during the month of July/August, 2012, has started plotting out the adjacent lands comprised in S.F.Nos. 184/5, 187/1F and 2B2, 188/4 and 189/1, and the said lands were relocated within the prohibitory distance of 300 meters from the quarry site and 500 meters from the stone crushing unit and in this regard, the writ petitioner sent a legal notice dated 10.9.2012, to the concerned authorities requesting them not to grant permission to layout the said lands. According to the writ petitioner, since no response was forthcoming, he filed O.S.No. 556 of 2012, on the file of the Court of District Munsiff at Perambalur and on advice, it was withdrawn and was dismissed as such on 12.12.2012.
It is the specific case of the writ petitioner that since his renewal application is pending and in the event of the adjacent lands to his stone quarry, being plotted out and sold, he may be put into difficulty to carry out his business and that since the layout proposed by the fifth respondent, is also located within the prohibitory distance, the respondents 1 to 4 shall be restrained from granting sanction of the layout or permitting any construction.
The appellant/writ petitioner, pending disposal of the writ petition, filed M.P.No. 1 of 2013 praying for an order of ad-interim injunction restraining respondents 1 to 4 from sanctioning the layout or permitting any construction in the adjacent lands and it was also granted.
The official respondents had filed their counter affidavits stating among other things that Padalur Village Panchayat (local body) also passed a resolution that any stone quarry within the limits of the Village Panchayat, would affect the welfare of the Panchayat and therefore, it should not be granted and it was also forwarded to the Collector of Perambalur District. It is further stated in the counter affidavits, that Padalur Village Panchayat as well as Alathur Panchayat Union had also approved for the establishment of a new Government Teachers Training College in the said Village and for that purpose, it was decided to evict the encroachers and also to stop quarries in the Village and necessary resolutions were also passed and submitted to the Collector of Perambalur District for approval.
The fifth respondent has filed his counter affidavit stating among other things, that admittedly, the lease for quarrying granted to the writ petitioner for a period of five years from 22.10.2007 to 21.10.2012, expired and that as per the relevant statutory provision, he has to submit his application for renewal 30 days before the expiry of licence; but, he has submitted his application for renewal on 8.10.2012, i.e. 13 days prior to the expiry of the licence. The fifth respondent would further contend that the appellant/writ petitioner had also encroached upon the lands in S.F.No. 184/1A belonging to him, and the lands in S.F.No. 184/3, which belongs to a third party, and was doing excavation activities. He would further contend that the location of the said quarry is also detriment to the development of the village and now the local body has passed necessary resolution and submitted the same to the jurisdictional District Collector.
The writ petitioner has filed the reply affidavit to the counter affidavit of the fifth respondent, wherein he has quoted the relevant statutory provisions and denied the allegation that he has encroached the adjacent lands and would further state that his application for renewal is pending consideration and since his business is lawful and is governed by the relevant statutory provisions and in the event of the adjacent lands to his quarry site being plotted out, he may not be able to carry out his lawful business and therefore, prayed for allowing the writ petition.
The first respondent has filed his counter affidavit stating among other things, that the quarry licence granted in favour of the appellant/writ petitioner, expired long back and he did not obtain requisite permission from the Town and Country Planning Authorities as envisaged under Section 47-A of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, and he has also not obtained consent from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to establish the Unit and the earlier consent granted to him, expired on 3.7.2009, itself and would further state that the application made by the fifth respondent for approval of layout, was also returned for want of documents on 4.3.2013, and since the licence to quarry granted in favour of the writ petitioner, had expired long back, he is not entitled to maintain the writ petition.
The learned Single Judge, after taking note of the materials placed, found that even as per the admission of the writ petitioner, as on date, he was not issued with licence for quarrying stone, nor his application for renewal was considered by the respondents 1 to 4 and has also taken into consideration the resolutions passed by the local body requesting the District Collector, Perambalur, not to grant any licence for establishment of stone quarry. Learned Single Judge also took note of the fact that the local body has also given it''s approval for setting up of a Government Teachers Training Institute after removing the encroachments, and the said proposal was also forwarded to the Collector of Perambalur District and since all the respondents had opposed the running of the stone quarry, the prayer sought for by the writ petitioner, cannot be granted, especially, when he is not a licence holder as on date. Learned Single Judge citing the said reasons, has dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 6.8.2014, and hence, this writ appeal.
Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner, would vehemently contend that the writ petitioner was initially granted licence to quarry stone in his own patta lands for a period of five years and it expired on 21.10.2012, and he has also submitted an application for renewal of licence and the same is pending consideration and in the interregnum, the fifth respondent sought to develop his plots and if such permission is granted, it may affect the writ petitioner''s quarrying operation even if the licence is renewed and the said vital aspect has been completely overlooked while dismissing the writ petition.
It is the further submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, that admittedly, stone quarry was in operation for a period of five years between 22.10.2007 and 21.10.2012 and if any plots are developed in future or likely to be located just adjacent to his quarrying site and in any event, it cannot be put against him for the reason that his sand quarry came into existence much prior to the intending permission to develop house plots and in support of his submission, he placed reliance upon the decision reported in 1 Queen''s Bench (1977) 966 (Miller and Another V. Jackson and Others).
Though the fifth respondent has entered appearance as caveator, there is no representation on his behalf.
The first respondent viz. the Director of Country Planning, Chennai, in his counter affidavit, took a specific stand that the appellant/writ petitioner did not obtain requisite permission from them as envisaged under Section 47-A of the Town and Country Planning Act and though he applied for permission to run the stone crushing unit, it was not granted by the Town and Country Planning Department of Perambalur and further, he has not obtained consent from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and the earlier consent obtained by him, expired on 3.7.2009, and the period of licence was already over by 21.10.2012. The first respondent also took a stand that the application for approval of layout submitted by the fifth respondent, was also returned for want of necessary documents on 4.3.2013.
It is very pertinent to point out at this juncture, that the Collector of Perambalur District, to whom the appellant/writ petitioner is said to have submitted the application for renewal of stone crushing unit, has given a letter of acceptance dated 4.3.2014, in favour of M/s. Shiva Construction, Perambalur, for construction of a Common Facility Centre at Padalur Panchayat in Alathur Panchayat Union. Though the appellant/writ petitioner claims that he has submitted the application for renewal of quarry lease, page 24 of the typed-set of documents would disclose that his application for grant of quarry lease is dated 8.10.2012, and the contents of the said application would also disclose that it was not for renewal of the earlier lease. That apart, no acknowledgement for submission of the said renewal application is also available in the typed-set of documents.
The appellant/writ petitioner has also not taken any steps to get his application for renewal disposed of at an early date and even as per his own admission, he has stopped quarrying operation on the date of expiry of licence and even otherwise, he his not entitled to quarry after the expiry of the licence, unless and until it is renewed by the concerned authorities.
The appellant/writ petitioner proceeds on the assumption that in the event of renewal of licence and approval of application for layout being granted to the fifth respondent, he may not be able to carry on his business. In the considered opinion of the Court, as on the date of filing of the writ petition, the writ petitioner is not having any legal right to carry on the stone quarrying operation and he has put forth his case based on assumption and surmises. The local body had also passed resolutions opposing the grant of licence for the sand quarry and further passed resolution for setting up of Government Teachers Training Institute. The learned Single Judge in para 8 of the impugned order, has taken into consideration all the relevant and material aspects and rightly reached the conclusion to dismiss the writ petition.
As far as the decision relied on by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and reported in 1 Queen''s Bench (1977) 966 (cited above) is concerned, the facts of the case would disclose that for 70 years, cricket was played on a particular ground, which was leased out to a Club, and subsequently, one of the neighbours chooses to build houses on the very edge of the cricket ground and in the light of the said new situation, it has been held that the injunction restraining the Club to use the ground for cricket cannot be granted. In the opinion of this Court, the said judgment has no application to the facts of this case for the reason that the licence granted to the writ petitioner, expired long back on 21.10.2012, and he has also not taken any steps to get the disposal of his renewal application and admittedly, stopped the quarrying operation on the expiry of the licence.
This Court, on an independent application of mind to the entire materials placed, is of the considered view that there is no error apparent or infirmity in the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge for dismissing the writ petition and finds no merit in this writ appeal.
In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.