Madras High Court
The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd vs The District Collector on 10 April, 2014
Author: C.S.Karnan
Bench: C.S.Karnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CAV ON :10.01.2014 DATED :10.04.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN W.P.No.35726 of 2002 and WP.MP.Nos.53383 & 53384 of 2002 The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Senior Divisional Manager, 8/1079, Avinashi Road, Coimbatore 641 018. ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore 641 018. 2.The Thasildar, Coimbatore-North, Coimbatore. 3.The District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st respondent in his proceedings No.58661/97 B-4 dated 23.04.2002, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reconsider the rental assessment of land in T.S.No.966/1, Annuppar Palayam Village, Coimbatore (North) Taluk, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner corporation. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Krishnamurthy (Senior counsel) for Mr.Anand, Abdul & Vinodh For Respondents : Mr.R.Lakshmi Narayanan Additional Government Pleader O R D E R
The petitioner further submits that the petitioner herein is Indian Oil Corporation Limited, a Government of India Undertaking, engaged in marketing Petroleum Products through retail network and he has been enjoying the market leadership. He states that the Indian Oil Corporation is the only Fortune 500 company from India, globally. He states that Indian Oil Corporation based upon the merit, eligibility and after the completion of the strict selection process, appoints dealers, retailers for marketing of their products. He states that the such outlets are classified as 'A', 'B' site retail outlets. In cases of A site retail outlets, all the facilities of the retail outlet are developed by the Corporation including the site. He states that the land for the A site retail outlet is either owned or leased by the Corporation and operated by a dealer who has been appointed by the Corporation as per the rules/policies of Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi.
2. The petitioner further submits that an extent of 1 acre 4.864 sq. ft. of land in T.S.No.966/1, Dak Bungalow Road, Coimbatore originally belonged to the State Government of Tamil Nadu. He states that an extent of 42,692 sq. ft. of land together with buildings with a plinth area of 4116 sq. ft. was placed at the disposal of District Soldier's Sailor and Airmen Board for the use as Ex-servicemen Centre with certain conditions by the Director of Employment and Training, Old Board of Revenue Building, Chepauk, Chennai-5 in his proceedings No.9766/65.B2 dated 19.12.70 (Ref. Govt. Memo No.14775/RI/67-19 dated 24.07.68). The Board of Revenue had recommended to the Government of Tamil Nadu that an extent of 4,416 sq. ft. on the Western Corner of the aforesaid land handed over to Ex-servicemen Centre was earmarked for lease to Indian Oil Company. He states that the Collector of Coimbatore in his proceedings No.41340/65 B-4 dated 03.01.1966 had permitted the lease of 4,420 sq. ft. of the aforesaid land to the Indian Oil Company for five years.
3. The petitioner further submits that on 20.09.1967, the petitioner herein appointed M/s.K.R. & Sons, 285, Big Bazar Street, Coimbatore as one of the Dealers to operate the Petrol filling and Service Station accordingly and agreement was entered upon the Indian Oil Corporation and the said M/s.K.R. and Sons.
4. The petitioner further states that thereafter in G.O.No.2287 dated 18.08.1972, the Government of Tamil Nadu referring to the proceedings and correspondence of 1967, 1968, 1970, 1971 and 1972 have ordered that 4,420 sq. ft. of land in the Western Corner of T.S.No.966/1 in Coimbatore can be leased out to Indian Oil Corporation and the lease amount should be credited to the Government. The G.O. further directed the District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore to submit necessary proposals separately with reference to the lease of the land to Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., mentioned above.
5. The petitioner further submits that thereafter there was no correspondence either by the Government of Tamil Nadu or Ex-servicemen Board to the Corporation about the fixation of rent for the property. He states that as such the terms of the lease or quantum of rent were not negotiated nor agreed upon at any point of time.
6. The petitioner further submits that Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., is in possession of 4420 sq. ft. of land in T.S.No.966/1 in North Coimbatore Taluk, running a Retail Petrol and Service Station through one of their Agents M/s.K.R. & Sons, Coimbatore. He states that as such there is no lease Agreement and there are no proceedings with regard to any discussion or minutes or any concluded contract between the Government and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., or K.R. & Sons, as to the terms of the Lease period or the quantum of rent payable for the land. He further states that from 1972 there was no demand or any proceedings or claim from either the Government or Ex-servicemen Board with respect to the lease arrears. He states that the Indian Oil Corporation has been paying the property tax for the construction on the aforesaid leased land to the Coimbatore Corporation and valid receipts have been issued in the name of Indian Oil Corporation.
7. The petitioner further states that while so, the 1st respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.58661/97-A4 dated 02.02.2000 had directed the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.25,79,367/- as the lease amount from 01.01.1971 to 31.12.2000. He states that the respondent had not even discussed with respect to the valuation arrived at for the lease arrears and had unilaterally calculated arrears of lease amount on their own assumptions and presumptions.
8. The petitioner further states that on 25.06.2001, the Tahsildar of Coimbatore North issued a demand in NA.KA.No.11671/97-A8 for payment of Rs.25,79,367/- before 10.07.2001 under threat of eviction from the land, stating that the above amount has been fixed as rent and surcharge for 30 years (From 01.01.71 to 31.12.2000). He states that the 1st respondent on 27.07.2001 in his proceedings in Rc.No.21415/2000 D2 once again asked the petitioner to pay the outstanding dues immediately. He states that a reply dated 06.08.2001 was sent to the aforesaid letter. He states that on 14.08.2001 the 1st respondent passed an order in his proceedings no.58661/97/B4 dated 14.08.2001 directing the petitioner to settle the dues immediately and to furnish the relevant records. He states that on 21.09.2001 a representation was given to the 1st respondent wherein it was stated that the escalation rate was very high.
9. The petitioner further states that on 24.12.2001, the petitioner without prejudice to their dis-agreement on the respondent's assessment of the rental arrears paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- vide DD No.22964 dated 14.12.2001 and represented to the District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore to convene a meeting to resolve the dispute. He states that the respondents having accepted the aforesaid payment and without considering the petitioner's proposal and representations to review their unilateral assessment, proceeded on 22.12.2001 by suspending the operations of the retail outlet M/s.K.R.Service Station operating in the aforesaid land for the non-payment of balance arrears and it resulted in severe inconvenience to the general public at large. The petitioner submits that subsequently on their requests, the suspension was revoked.
10. The petitioner further states that they were under the impression that their proposal was being considered but to their shock and surprise the respondents once again stopped the retail outlet's operations on 22.01.2002 by tying a rope across the entry and exit which again caused severe hardship and inconvenience to the public. He states that hence a representation dated 22.01.2002 was given to the 1st respondent to revoke the suspension of the retail outlet as well as to reconsider the assessment of rental arrears but nothing transpired.
11. The petitioner further states that based on the unilateral and unlawful claim, the Government is insisting on payment under threat of coercive action. They have not only threatened proceedings under Revenue Recovery Act, but also twice stopped the operations of the outlet and obstructed the access to the customers to the retail outlet.
12.He additionally states that the 1st respondent on 23.04.2002 in his reference No.58661/97-B-4 has passed an order wherein the petitioner's representation for consideration of annual escalation rate for lease amount has been rejected and the petitioner has been directed to pay the balance arrears immediately.
13. He states that though the petitioner had again requested orally several times to call for a meeting and to review and reconsider the unilateral assessment, but the respondents kept silent for all this time and now suddenly are trying to take coercive steps for recovery of the unilateral assessment arrears and if the respondents succeeded in their attempts then severe hardship will be caused to the public at large and the petitioner herein. The petitioner submits that already the abrupt suspensions of the outlet have affected the image of the Corporation and irreparable injury would be caused to the petitioner herein if the respondents succeed in their attempts. Hence, this petition has been filed.
14.The first respondent / District Collector filing this counter affidavit on his own behalf and on behalf of the other respondents. He denies the various averments set out in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the writ petition, especially those that are expressly admitted hereunder.
15. He submits that the brief history of the case is as hereunder:
He submits that the Collector of Coimbatore in his D.O.Lr.No.8425/45-A5 dated 17.05.1945 has addressed the Government about the disposal of the land measuring 1 Acre 4864 Sq.ft. in T.S.No.966/1 of Anupperpalayam Village in Coimbatore Town. The recommendations of the then Board of Revenue are as follows:
(i) An extent of 4420 Sq.ft. in the Western corner of the land may be leased out to the Indian Oil Company.
(ii) The extent of 42.692 Sq.ft. of land together with the building constructed on an extent of 4.116 Sq. ft. in the site may be formally placed at the disposal of the District Soldiers' Sailors' and Airman's Board for the use as 'Ex-Services Centre under B.S.O.24 on condition that the vacant space of 38.577 Sq.ft. should not be built upon by them; and
(iii) That the vacant area measuring 1.311 Sq. ft. lying outside the compound wall in the field may be allowed to remain vacant as there is an Electricity transformer nearby.
16. He submits that in as much as the Collector of Coimbatore in his Proceedings No.41340/65-B4 dated 03.01.1965 has permitted lease of 4,420 Sq.ft. to the Indian Oil Company for 5 years. The above facts are available in the copy of Lr.No.9766/65 Dated 19.12.1970 from Thiru. J.Jas, I.A.S., Director of Employment and Training, Old Board of Revenue Buildings, Chepauk, Chennai-5, addressed to the Secretary to Government, Labour Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
17. He submits that based on the recommendations of the Board of Revenue the Government have passed orders (G.O.Ms.No.2287/Revenue/Dated 18.08.1972) on the disposal of land measuring 1 Acre 4,864 Sq. Ft. in T.S.No.966/1 in Coimbatore Town. The Government also requested the District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore to submit necessary proposals separately with reference to the orders in para-1.
18. He submits that it is presumed that the Indian Oil Company, Coimbatore would have entered into Memorandum of Agreement with K.R.Service Station on 20.09.1967 vide Collector's Proceedings No.41340/65-B4 dated 03.01.1965. In the beginning the business was carried out by partnership concern (K.R.Lakshmanan and his Son L.Prakash). It is evident that the Memorandum of Agreement is incomplete in respect of the tenure of and license fees. But the lease is only between the Government of Tamil Nadu represented by the District Collector and Indian Oil Corporation, Coimbatore. The Lease Agreement entered into with the Collector, Coimbatore is not available in the file and the company has also not come forward to produce the lease agreement, executed in the year 1966 in spite of the request made by the Collector, Coimbatore. On perusal of the available records, it is found that the original lease was granted in 03.01.1966 for five years. Subsequently renewal was not granted to M/s.Indian Oil Corporation since the oil company failed to apply for further extension of lease period in time. It came to light only in the year 1997, when one Thiru.K.Prakash, K.R.Service Station has requested to grant fresh lease since his father expired, who was a dealer of Indian Oil Corporation.
19. He submits that the lease proposals for the period from 20.09.1967 to 31.12.1970 was sent to Collector vide this Office Ref.7064/2000, dated 28.07.2000. According to the proposals the Company has to remit a sum of Rs.1,09,210/- towards lease amount. Subsequently lease proposals were initiated for the period from 01.01.1971 to 31.12.2000. That itself workout to Rs.25,79,367/- excluding the earlier period i.e. from 20.09.1967 to 31.12.1970.
20. It is submitted that in the meantime the original Dealer Thiru.K.R.Lakshmanan expired on 19.12.1994. While so, Thiru.L.Prakash, K.R. Service Station, in his application dated 03.07.1997 has stated that his father was the leaser of the land, who was a Dealer of Indian Oil Corporation and after his demise, the lease be given to him. It is also evident that after the sudden demise of Thiru.K.R.Lakshmanan, the firm was reconstituted as a Proprietary concern. The Special Commissioner and the Commissioner for Land Administration Chennai questioned how the dealer Thiru.L.Prakash applied for the lease of the land. In the absence of Lease agreement entered into by the Indian Oil Company, and in the absence of details of payment of lease rental for the period from 03.01.1966 to 31.12.1970 and continuous possession and tenure of lease had already expired, the Collector has ordered for the recovery of lease amount from the Indian Oil Corporation, Coimbatore. The Accountant General, Chennai had also pointed out that lease amount should be fixed from 20.09.1967 onwards. As per the instructions of the Accountant General, Chennai, a Demand Notice was also sent to the Senior Divisional Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, Coimbatore. But there was no response from the Oil Company. Hence, the District Revenue Officer issued instructions to the Tahsildar, Coimbatore North to collect the arrears from the Company by enforcing Revenue Recovery Act. Aggrieved by this act, the Company has now filed a writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.35726/2002 in WMP.No.53383 and 53384/2002.
21. This respondent states that a through study of the copy of Lr.No.9766/65 dated 19.12.1970 from Thiru. J.Jas, I.A.S., Director of Employment and Training, Old Board of Revenue Building, Chepauk, Chennai-5 addressed to the Secretary to Government, Labour Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9, will reveal that the then Collector of Coimbatore in his D.O.Lr.No.8425/45 dated 17.05.1945 has sought for certain clarification about the disposal of the land measuring 1 Acre 4864 Sq.ft. in T.S.No.966/1 of Coimbatore Town. It also carried the recommendations of the Board of Revenue. In the last para it is also mentioned that in as much as the Collector, Coimbatore, in his proceedings No.41340/65-B4, dated 03.01.1965 has permitted lease of 4,420 Sq.ft. to the Indian Oil Company for 5 years. The Lease Agreement entered with the Collector, Coimbatore by the Company was not produced by the Company. With the available records it is ascertained that the original lease was granted in 03.01.1966 for five years only, and the Indian Oil Corporation had not applied in time for extension of lease period beyond the expiry of lease period, and now only the lease proposals has been initiated for the period from 01.01.1971 to 31.12.2000. The Government have issued orders on the recommendations of the Board of Revenue in its G.O.Ms.No.2287/Revenue/Dated 18.08.1972. Accordingly, the Government have allotted a portion of land measuring 4,420 Sq. ft. in the Western Corner of the land in T.S.No.966/1 in Coimbatore Town to be leased out to the Indian Oil Company and the lease amount credited to the Government. There is no mention about the lease period. The Government only requested the District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore, to submit necessary proposals separately with reference to the orders in para-1. Therefore, the interpretations made in this para is not correct. Further, the Oil Company inspite of repeated requests made has not come forward to furnish the details of payment of lease amount credited to the Government for the above period.
22. As far as the averments in Para 6 of the affidavit, it is submitted by the respondents that the Oil Company, knowing well, that the lease period with the Government was going to be expired after five years from 03.01.1966. Being a reputed company, it is the responsibility of the Indian Oil Corporation to apply well in advance before the expiry of the lease period and have it renewed. Having not done so, and fixing responsibility with others for the lapses having committed by the Indian Oil Corporation is not a reasonable one, cannot be accepted and no mention in their argument.
23. This respondent further submits that the Company is in the habit of blaming others. The Corporation should have approached the District Revenue Officer or Collector about the fixation of lease, right from the beginning itself. Moreover, they are reluctant to send a copy of the original lease deed which is under the safe custody of the Regional Office. Enjoying the Government land without paying any rent is a clear violation of rules. According to the calculation, the Company has to remit a sum of Rs.1,09,210/- for the period from 20.09.1967 to 31.12.1970. Further, a sum of Rs.25,79,367/- has to be remitted for the period from 01.01.1971 to 31.12.2000. This demand was raised and informed to the Corporation in the year 1997 itself. But, till date the corporation is not in a position to pay the arrears in full and simply dragging on the issue further, by giving lame excuses. Therefore, the averment made in this para may be rejected summarily.
24. As far as averments in Para 8, it is submitted that the fixation of Lease amount (year wise) for the period from 01.01.1971 to 31.12.2000 is based on sales that took place in the particular Village and adding surcharge of 13%. Therefore, the fixation of lease amount is correct and in accordance with rules. Hence, the averment made in this para is not true to facts. The entire averment may be rejected.
25. It is submitted that the land value is fixed considering the sales that took place in the Village and the calculations are correct with reference to rules. Only the prevailing rate has been adopted for arriving of lease amount. There is no back-assessment mentioned. Therefore, the figure arrived at is correct and genuine. The lease amount has accumulated due to the failure of the Corporation to pay the arrears then and there. The lease amount fixed by the Government is based on the sales took place in the particular period which is not high, as said by the Indian Oil Corporation and therefore their request cannot be considered and deserves no merit.
26. This respondent further submits that the above land is earmarked for the corporation on application of Rule 24 of the Board Standing Order. Whatever the amount fixed as Lease amount should be paid immediately. Failing which coercive action will be taken to collect the arrears. Neither the Company nor the Dealer is ready to remit the arrears. Hence, there is no other option except for the attachment of property under Revenue Recovery Act. The Non-payment of arrears will lead to short fall in the Government exchequer.
27. It is submitted that there is no truth in the averment made in this para 11 of the affidavit, the calculations are in accordance with the rules and the correct one. No back assessment was calculated. The Corporation has failed to clear the arrears in time, failing which the amount has accumulated. In spite of remitting the Government dues in time, they are delaying the issue further. There are lot of retail filling outlets in the nearby area. One day closure of petrol Bunk for one outlet will not affect the public. The Indian Oil Corporation has put this argument only to delay the payment and settle the dues early and hence it deserves no consideration. In spite of repeated requests to the Indian Oil Corporation, they have not shown keen interest to settle the dues early. In such circumstances, there was no option before the authorities other than taking stringent action. The conducting of meeting with the Indian Oil Corporation is not warranted, since the lease amount was fixed with reference to rules only and therefore considering their plea for fixing the lease amount in a lesser rate of in consultation with them is not necessary.
28. It is further submitted that the Corporation could avoid such coercive action by way of paying the arrears in full. If at all the matter is dragged on further, there is no other option other than the taking stringent action under R.P. Act. It is prayed that the Corporation may be directed by this Court, Chennai suitably in this matter. It is submitted that the orders passed by this respondent is with reference to rules and the correct one. There is no truth in their claim. The averment made in this para may be rejected summarily.
29. It is submitted that which is stated in the earlier paras, that there is no provision to call for a meeting for finalizing any lease rent. The lease rent fixed is based on the sales that took place in the Village, which will reflect the prevailing market value of the land. Hence, it is prayed that this Court may please summarily reject the prayer of the petitioner.
30. (a)As far as the Grounds are concerned, it is submitted that the 2nd respondent here in has gathered the sales particulars that took place in that Village year wise and a date land was selected, which will reflect the correct market value of the land. Based on the land value, lease amount and additional surcharge of 13% were calculated. Therefore the lease amount fixed by the Respondents are correct and genuine, based on records. There is not having wrong in the orders passed by the 1st and 2nd respondents. There is no deviation of rules.
(b)It is further submitted that normally for finalizing the land value, sale particulars for the one year period is taken, and out of which data land in selected, which will reflect the correct market value. Accordingly the lease rent and Additional Surcharge are levied. The land is earmarked for the Corporation only after the application of B.S.O.24. Hence, the Corporation is bound to pay the rent fixed by the Government. Therefore the lease rent fixed is correct and genuine.
(c)It is submitted that the applicant failed to execute the sale deed with Collector, Coimbatore. They also failed to apply in time for renewal of lease. They are enjoying the land without paying any rent. If the petitioner was not interested in the land he might have vacated the land immediately and informed the District Collector at the earlier stage. But inspite of not doing so, the petitioner was occupying the land on lease basis from the year 1966 without paying any lease amount. The lease contract mentioned by the petitioner is not applicable in this case. There are rules and regulations in the Government on how to fix up lease amount. Based on the rules only the lease amount was arrived at. There is no necessity to discuss the issue with the Indian Oil Corporation regarding the fixing up of lease amount. Petitioner has not accepted the Government norms, he might have left the land by handing over to Government. While insisting payment of lease amount the Indian Oil Corporation has raised such issues which is not correct and may be rejected.
(d)The averment made in para 7 of the Grounds is not warranted. The respondents are well acquainted with the classification of land and while fixing the land value only the site value has been adopted. The fixation of lease is for every three years, hence on the expiry of lease period sales particulars will be collected from the Sub-Registrar and a suitable data land will be selected out of the sales, which will reflect the present market rate. There is no need to dictate the rules and regulations regarding the fixation of lease rent.
(e)The averments set out in para 8 is not correct. The over dues could be collected by using Revenue Recovery Act. There is no limitation for the recovery of arrears under R.R. Act. Moreover, the amount arrived at is categorically explained to the corporation through a statement. A perusal of the above statement will clearly explain that the land value was fixed based on the sales that took place in that village. Therefore the amount arrived at is correct and based on records.
(f)The averments setout in para 9 of grounds is not correct. Occupying a Government land and not paying any rent is a clear violation of Article 14 and 19(g) of the Constitution of India. It is not at all fair on the part of the Corporation to enjoy the land without paying any rent. At the time of allocation of land to Indian Oil Corporation, the Government have clearly indicated that the amount derived will be utilized for the benefit of the welfare of the D.S.S.A Board. The actual beneficiaries are Ex-Service personnel's. The Corporation should be lenient and an amicable settlement could have been arrived, as and when the lease period is over or not renewed. Leaving aside obligations the Corporation has filed a writ in this simple case.
(g)The District Administration has requested several times to settle the Government dues. But instead of settlying the dues, they are evading payment. Hence, there is no other option before the Government other than that by invoking R.R.Act to realize the Government dues.
(h)To collect the Government dues, when the defaulter failed to remit the dues, inspite of repeated request, it is necessary to initiate some hard stops to collect the dues under R.R.Act. But the Indian Oil Corporation should have come forward to clear off the dues at the earlier stage, the unpleasant events may not have happened and it is a failure on the part of the Indian Oil Corporation only and not by the Government.
31. It is submitted that in the circumstances stated above the Corporation is reluctant to furnish the details called for from this office and at the same time delaying to pay the arrears arrived at. The year wise details of fixation of lease amount will clearly show that on every occasion a new sales was taken up for fixing the lease amount, and after adding local cess and local cess Surcharge the lease amount was fixed. The Corporation has not filed any agreement with the Government for taking the 4420 Sq. Ft. of land on lease. They have not applied for the renewal of lease on the expiry of first 5 years and also subsequent years. They did not care to know the rent to be fixed for the land, and also not convening a meeting. Hence, the amount arrived at is correct and based on records. Only on the application of B.S.O.24, the land was earmarked to the Indian Oil Corporation. They have already agreed to the amount fixed by the Government. Hence, questioning the validity of the Demand Notice does not arise. One way or other the amount over due is very huge and the Accountant General has also pointed out to realize the amount immediately. Hence, coercive steps were taken to realize the amount. Further, the lease agreement entered with the dealer does not speak anything about the place and location of the land, and details about the Dealer. The Corporation has already remitted Rs.5 lakhs. Subsequently a sum of Rs.10 lakhs was remitted into Government account as per the High Court directions. The balance amount could be remitted immediately and streamline the payment of lease amount every years. Further, due to the payment of Rs.10 lakhs the stay will automatically come into force.
32. It is submitted that the writ petition is devoid of facts and merit and also deserves no consideration and liable to be dismissed. It is submitted further by not disclosing the actual facts, the petitioner has obtained an order of interim stay vide W.M.P.Nos.53383 and 53384 of 2002 from this Court vide order dated 17.09.2002. It is therefore prayed that this Court may be pleased to vacate the interim stay granted in W.M.P.Nos.53383 and 53384 of 2002 by order dated 17.09.2002 and also dismiss the W.P.No.35726 of 2002.
33. The highly competent counsel, Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's Corporation is engaged in marketing Petroleum Products through retail network and has been enjoying the market dealership. The Indian Oil Corporation is based upon the merits, eligibility dealers, retailers, for marketing of their products. Such outlets are classified as 'A' and 'B'. In case of 'A' site retail outlets, all the facilities of the retail outlet are developed by the Corporation. The land for 'A' site retail outlet in either owned or leased by the corporation and operated by a dealer, who has been appointed by a corporation as per the rules of Government of India, ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi.
34. The very competent Senior counsel further submits that to an extent of 1 acre and 4084 sq.ft of land comprised in T.S.No.966/1, Dak Bungalow Road, Coimbatore, originally belonged to the State Government of Tamil Nadu to an extent of 42,692 sq.ft of land together with buildings with a plinth area of 4,160 sq. ft was placed at the disposal of the District Soldier's Sailor and Airmen Board for the use as Ex-servicemen Centre with certain conditions by the Director of employment and framing. The board of revenue had recommended to the Government of Tamil Nadu to an extent of 4,460 sq.ft on the western corner of the above said land be handed over to ex-servicemen centre was earmarked for lease to Indian Oil Company. Accordingly, the District Collector had permitted the lease of 4420 sq.ft of the above said land to the Indian Oil Company for a period of five years. The petitioner herein has been appointed as one of the dealers to operate the petrol filling and service station and accordingly an agreement was entered upon with the Indian oil Corporation and the petitioner herein. The Government of Tamil Nadu, had ordered that 4,420 Sq. ft of land be leased out to Indian Oil Corporation and the lease amount should be credited to the State Government. The Indian Oil Corporation is in possession as per the lease agreement. There is no discussion regarding lease period and quantum of rent payable for the land. The Indian Oil Corporation has been paying the property tax for the construction of the building on the above said land. Under the circumstances, the 1st respondent/District Collector had issued proceedings and directed the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.25,79,363/- as the lease amount from 01.01.1971 to 31.12.2000. The 1st respondent, unilaterally and arbitrarily calculated the arrears of lease amount and demanded the same. On the strength of 1st respondent proceeding, the 2nd respondent Tahsildar had issued demand notice and asked the petitioner to pay the said amount. The petitioner had given representation to the 1st respondent that the escalation rate was very high. However, the petitioner, without prejudice had paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. Hence, the highly competent Senior Counsel Mr.Krishnamoorthy, entreats the Court to set aside the 1st respondent's order which is an arbitrary one.
35. The very competent Additional Government Pleader, Mr.R.Lakshmi Narayanan, appearing for the respondents submits that the 1st respondent had demanded payment of lease for 30 years. The petitioners representation was well considered but rejected. The fixation of lease rent had been assessed as per the agreement. The provisional demand was arrived at for the period of 30 years. Further, the lease rent collectable was 2% of land value and 13% of A.S.C on lease rent upto 30.06.1992. From 01.07.1992 to 03.06.1998, the lease rent is 14% of land value and 13% of A.S.C on lease amount. Again from 04.06.1998 till date, the lease rent is 2% of land value and 13% of A.S.C on lease amount as per the Government Order prevailing for the period. Therefore, the annual escalation rate as adopted by the petitioner, cannot be worked out, since the land is used for commercial purpose. Further, the lease rent has been worked out as per the orders of the State Government. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the 1st and 2nd respondents are suitable for execution.
36. Per contra, the highly competent Senior Counsel, Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, vehemently, pointed out that the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent reveals that the provisional demand was arrived at for the period from 1971 to 30.06.1992, the lease rent collectable was 2% of land value and 13% of A.S.C on lease rent. The same respondent calculated the provisional demand from 01.07.1992 to 03.06.1998. The lease rent is 14% of land value and 13% of A.S.C on lease amount, which remains as it was before, but the District Collector's order's reveals that from 04.06.1998 till date, the lease rent is 2% of land value and 13% of A.S.C on lease rent. This calculation is not crystal clear and it is inconsistent. Therefore, the impugned order of the 1st and 2nd respondents are not fit to be operated upon any further against the petitioner.
37. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the typed set of papers, this Court is of the view that the 1st respondent had calculated 2% lease rent from 1971 to 30.06.1992. The 1st respondent has calculated lease rent at 14% of land value on the same land instead of 2% from 01.07.1992 to 03.06.1998. Therefore, a clarification on the said issue is required. Hence, this Court directs the respondents to issue prior notice to the petitioner and conduct a comprehensive enquiry in his presence and pass orders on merits on this issue, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Till such time, the respondents are restrained from interfering with the operation of the petitioner's retail outlet in the name of M/s.K.R.Service Station, No.26, T.B.Road, Coimbatore. Hence, the above writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
10.04.2014
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
ub
C.S.KARNAN, J.
ub
To
1.The District Collector,
Coimbatore District,
Coimbatore 641 018.
2.The Thasildar,
Coimbatore-North,
Coimbatore.
3.The District Revenue Officer,
Coimbatore District,
Coimbatore.
Pre-Delivery order made in
W.P.No.35726 of 2002
and
WP.MP.Nos.53383 & 53384 of 2002
10.04.2014