Madras High Court
Acc Limited vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 December, 2021
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
W.P.No.29757 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.12.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.29757 of 2019
And
W.M.P.No.29653 of 2019
ACC Limited ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by its Secretary,
Industries Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Geology and Mining,
Department of Geology and Mining,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Guindy,
Chennai – 600 032.
3.The District Collector
Office of the District Collector,
District Collectorate,
Coimbatore.
4.The Assistant Director
Department of Geology and Mining
Coimbatore – 8.
5.The Tahsildar
Coimbatore South Taluk Office,
Coimbatore. ... Respondents
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.29757 of 2019
Prayer:
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the third
respondent pertaining to impugned order in Na.Ka.No.291/2012/X-1
dated 22.08.2019 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.R.Ramanathan
For Respondents : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan
Government Advocate
(Mines and Minerals)
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the third respondent pertaining to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.291/2012/X-1 dated 22.08.2019 and to quash the same.
2.The issue involved in this writ petition relates to levy and collection of compensation amount for limestone mines in the Government poromboke lands under Rule 72 of The Mineral Concession Rules. Similar issue has already been decided by this Court in the order dated 20.11.2019 passed in W.P.Nos.4373 of 2000 etc., batch (The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the 2/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29757 of 2019 Secretary to Government Vs. Dalmia Cements (Bharath) Limited and others).
3.It is useful to extract hereunder the relevant portions of the order of this Court dated 20.11.2019 passed in W.P.Nos.4373 of 2000 etc., batch (The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Secretary to Government Vs. Dalmia Cements (Bharath):
"26. Further, as admitted by the writ petitioners/lessees the term occupier is not mentioned anywhere in the Act and Rules with reference to the holder of a mining lease, whether in respect of patta lands or government poromboke lands. Howeve,r it is vehemently contended by the petitioners that the moment the lease is granted in their favour, they enter into the lease hold lands and become the occupier of those lands, therefore, they need not pay the annual compensation payable to the occupier of the land, because they themselves become the occupier of the land and they need not pay compensation for themselves. This submission made on behalf of the petitioners cannot be countenanced. The payment of annual compensation is intended to compensate the nature and extent of damage caused to the 3/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29757 of 2019 lands to which mining operation is permitted by the Government. The damage that is likely to be caused to the private land as well as the land classified as Government Poromboke land is certain. Furthermore, in respect of the Government Poromboke land, the Government is the paramount title holder of the lands and therefore, as a owner of such land, the Government is entitled for receipt of compensation for the proportionate damage that the mining operation may result in. Therefore, as per Rule 72 of the Mineral Mineral Concession Rules, the holders of mining lease are liable to remit annual compensation for surface rights in respect of mining leases granted in government poromboke lands.
27. I also wish to observe that it is possible to obtain mining lease even in respect of private land, without the consent of the real owner of such land, however, before carrying out mining operation or entering into the land or occupying the leased hold land, the consent of the land owner is imperative and mandatory as 4/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29757 of 2019 per the proviso to Rule 24-A. On the basis of such consent by the land owner, the State Government will confer mining lease over the private land. The reason being the owner of the land must be aware of the perils and/or damage that may be occasioned to his lands due to the mining operation. The same yardstick has to be applied even in the case of government poromboke lands. It is needless to mention that the damage that may be caused to the land owned by private individual due to mining operation will be the same in case of government poromboke lands. Therefore, apart from collecting royalty, surface rent or other statutory charges, the government, in my opinion, is wholly justified in demanding and levying annual compensation payable by the lessee.
28. It is also to be noted that the lease deed entered into between the lessees and the Government contains certain clause, which includes payment of compensation as contemplated under Rule 72 in respect of Government poromboke lands. When the the 5/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29757 of 2019 lessees have signed the lease deed with their eyes wide open, they are estopped from questioning the contents of the lease deed after it's execution. The lessees have subjected themselves to the conditions incorporated in the lease deed, while so, they cannot turn around and contend that the conditions incorporated under the lease deed are beyond the statutory provisions of the Act and Rule or it is inconsistent with the Act and Rules. In some cases, admittedly, the lessees have also paid the compensation amount without prejudice to their right to prosecute the present writ petitions. Be that as it may, it is well settled that after entering into the arena, the rules of the games cannot be changed. This principle will apply to the facts of the present case. The petitioners have got the lease deed executed containing the clause for payment of compensation in respect of government poromboke lands. However, after commencing the mining operation, the lessees cannot be heard to contend that such compensation is payable only to the private lands owned by individuals and not in respect of government poromboke lands as they are the occupier of such lands. It is needless to 6/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29757 of 2019 mention that the Government is the paramount title holder of the government poromboke lands and for the damage that may be caused to such lands during the mining operation or damage to the ecology, the Government is always has a vested right to seek to collect such compensation, as an owner and as an occupier from the lessees. Above all, Rule 27 (1) (d) empowers the State to collect surface rent and water rate for the surface areas used for mining operation. Rule 27 (1) (t) specifies the compensation to be paid by the mining leaseholder to the occupier towards the surface of the land. Here again, there is no reference made to the lands of the private individuals and the one classified as Government poromboke lands to which mining lease are granted. In the absence of the same, a purposive interpretation of the Act and Rules must be to hold that the State Government is entitled to levy and collect annual compensation from the lessees towards the damages caused to the surface of the Government poromboke lands.
29. The Revisional Authority, whose order is questioned in some of the writ petitions, has concluded that what is sought to be protected 7/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29757 of 2019 by framing the Rules is the surface right of a private land holder has to be compensated as such land owner might be deprived of putting such land for any other alternative purpose. I am unable to accept such a conclusion arrived at by the Revisional Authority. When the private land of an individual, which was leased out, will be subjected to damage warranting payment of compensation for depriving the land owner to put it to any other alternative use, the same yardstick has to be equally applied to the lands which are classified as government poromboke lands. Equally, the Government also will be deprived of using the land for any other alternative use due to intense mining of the land. Therefore, reasoning assigned by the revisional authority that by reason of damage caused to the surface of the government poromboke land, no third party will be prejudically affected cannot be sustained. Therefore, the order passed by the Revisional Authority, which are impugned in the writ petitions filed by the State are not sustainable and they are liable to be set aside.8/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29757 of 2019
30. In the light of the above, the WP No. 4373 of 2000, WP Nos. 7896, 7897, 7898, 7899, 7900 and 7901 of 2001 as well as WP Nos. 6958 and 6959 of 2002 filed by the State Government are allowed. The other writ petitions filed by the lessees Writ Petition Nos. 6487, 6488, 6489 and 6490 of 2005, Writ Petition Nos. 4442 and 4443 of 2010 and WP (MD) No. 7057 of 2017 are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, all the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”
4.Since the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court made in the order dated 20.11.2019 passed in W.P.Nos.4373 of 2000 etc., batch (The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Secretary to Government Vs. Dalmia Cements (Bharath) Limited and others), this writ petition is dismissed on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
14.12.2021 pri Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order Index: Yes/ No Internet: Yes/ No 9/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29757 of 2019 To
1.The Secretary, Industries Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Geology and Mining, Department of Geology and Mining, Government of Tamil Nadu, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.
3.The District Collector Office of the District Collector, District Collectorate, Coimbatore.
4.The Assistant Director Department of Geology and Mining Coimbatore – 8.
5.The Tahsildar Coimbatore South Taluk Office, Coimbatore.
10/11https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29757 of 2019 M.DHANDAPANI,J.
pri W.P.No.29757 of 2019 And W.M.P.No.29653 of 2019 11/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29757 of 2019 14.12.2021 12/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis