Dismissed

M/S.Dalmia Bharat Sugar and Industries Ltd. v. the State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC22 Jul 2024WA/2685/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses two Writ Appeals challenging a High Court order. The court held that the lease granted to the petitioner company had expired, and the Writ Court was not inclined to interfere with the decision dismissing petitions seeking to set aside lease charges.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeals dismissed; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petition dismissed.

M/S.Dalmia Bharat Sugar and Industries Ltd. Vs the State… — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

2024:MHC:2807

¶2

WA Nos.2685 and 2687 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED : 22-07-2024

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM And THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶7

WA Nos.2685 and 2687 of 2021 And

¶8

CMP No.17941 of 2021

¶9

M/s.Dalmia Bharat Sugar and Industries Ltd., (Previously known as Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd.), A Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, having its Registered Office at Dalmiapuram District, Tiruchirapalli, Tamil Nadu inter alia carrying on business under the name and style of M/s.Dalmia Magnesite Corporation at Salem 636 012, Tamil Nadu Represented by its Managing Director Mr.Jai Hari Dalmia

¶10

[The cause title accepted vide order of Court dated 30.09.2021 made in CMP Nos.15786 and 15779 of 2021 in WA SR Nos.23615 and 23616 of 2020]

¶11

... Appellant in both WAs

¶12

-vs-

¶13

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St. George,

¶14

Page 1 of 8

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

WA Nos.2685 and 2687 of 2021

¶17

Chennai-600 009.

¶18

2.The District Collector, Salem-636 001.

¶19

3.The Tahsildar, Omalur 636 455, Salem District. .. Respondents in both WAs

¶20

Writ Appeals are preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of this Court made in WP Nos.26813 and 26814 of 2003 dated 31.12.2019.

¶21

For Appellant in both WAs : Mr.Satish Parasaran, Senior Counsel for Mr.T.Poornam.

¶22

For Respondents in both WAs : Mr.A.Selvendran, Special Government Pleader.

¶23

C OM M O N J U D G M E N T

¶24

[COMMON JUDGMENT OF THE COURT WAS DELIVERED

¶25

BY S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.]

¶26

The common order dated 31.12.2019 passed in WP Nos.26813

¶27

and 26814 of 2003 are sought to be assailed in the present Writ Appeals.

¶28

Page 2 of 8

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

WA Nos.2685 and 2687 of 2021

¶31

The Writ Court has elaborately considered the scope of

¶32

interference in matters concerning to lease of Government lands and in the present cases, the Government Order, which was under challenge expired.

¶33

Mr.Satish Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.T.Poornam, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that portion of the Government land leased out was converted as public road. Therefore, demanding surcharge from the petitioner-Company on annual basis is improper. The petitioner-Company is not liable to pay surcharge, cess and other charges for the portion of the land, which has been utilised as public road by the general public. To that extent, the Government Order is liable to be set aside.

¶34

It is not in dispute that the order under challenge before the

¶35

Writ Court is G.O.Ms.No.73, Revenue Department, dated 09.02.2002 and lease was granted to the writ petitioner for a period of 30 years and expired on 20.12.2017.

¶36

Page 3 of 8

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

WA Nos.2685 and 2687 of 2021

¶39

That being so, the petitioner is not entitled to possess the

¶40

land.

¶41

Mr.A.Selvendran, learned Special Government Pleader,

¶42

appearing on behalf of the respondents, would urge that the special condition stipulated under the Revenue Standing Order would apply in such circumstances and the Government is empowered to collect necessary charges as per the lease condition and the special condition contemplated under the Revenue Standing Order.

¶43

The rights of the petitioner has been elaborately adjudicated

¶44

by the Writ Court and the period of lease expired and the writ petitions were dismissed. Thus, we are not inclined to interfere with the decision taken by the Writ Court, since the petitioner-Company during the lease period is liable to pay the lease rent and other applicable charges as per the Government Order and the Revenue Standing Order applicable.

¶45

Page 4 of 8

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶47

WA Nos.2685 and 2687 of 2021

¶48

Finally, Mr.Satish Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel would

¶49

submit that the surcharge and other charges, which all are not contemplated under the Government Order need not be recovered from the petitioner. Such disputed facts regarding recovery of lease rent or other revenue, are to be adjudicated before the Government in the manner contemplated.

¶50

In the present Writ Appeals, the Government Order, which was under challenge in the writ petitions is the subject issue and as far as the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.73, Revenue Department, dated 09.02.2002 is concerned, the period of lease expired.

¶51

Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in respect of the

¶52

decision taken by the Writ Court. If at all any grievance exists regarding the demand of surcharge or other charges, it is left open to the petitionerCompany to approach the Authorities.

¶53

With the above observations, both the Writ Appeals are

¶54

dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the

¶55

Page 5 of 8

¶56

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶57

WA Nos.2685 and 2687 of 2021

¶58

connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

¶59

(S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.) (C.KUMARAPPAN,J.)

¶60

22-07-2024

¶61

Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking order/Non-Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes/No Svn

¶62

¶63

Page 6 of 8

¶64

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶65

WA Nos.2685 and 2687 of 2021

¶66

1.The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

¶67

2.The District Collector, Salem-636 001.

¶68

3.The Tahsildar, Omalur 636 455, Salem District.

¶69

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

¶70

Page 7 of 8

¶71

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶72

WA Nos.2685 and 2687 of 2021

¶73

Svn

¶74

WA Nos.2685 and 2687 of 2021

¶75

22-07-2024

¶76

Page 8 of 8

¶77

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M/S.Dalmia Bharat Sugar and Industries Ltd. v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Dalmia Bharat Sugar and Industries Ltd. v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kumara Rajah Muthiah School of Traditional Arts and Crafts Vs Secretary to the Government

The Regional Manager Vs S.K.Srinivasan

G. Baskaran Vs the Managing Director

Col K Malaiappan Retired Vs Govt of India Rep by

The Pentecostal Mission Vs the Union of India, Rep. by

P.Samiappa Gounder Vs the Regional Transport