Solo Knit Process Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Secretary to Government

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the respondents made in NA.Ka.No. 27318/2012/A3 dated 3.4.2018, signed on 3.4.2019 and quash the same.

¶22

PRAYER in W.P.No.23152 of 2021

¶23

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the 3rd respondent made in NA.Ka.No. 2221/2019/A2 Dated 07.09.2021 and quash the same.

¶24

For Petitioner: Ms.Selvi George For Respondents: Mr.M.Rajendran Additional Government Pleader

¶25

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶26

Since the issue involved in the petitions are interconnected, they are

¶27

taken up together and a common order is passed.

¶28

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that

¶29

the land in Survey nos.40/1, 40/4 and 110 in Padavalkalvai village and survey

¶30

no.533/3, Ammapettai village were taken by the petitioner on the lease basis

¶31

2/7

¶32

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

¶33

WP Nos. 21494 of 2019 & 23152 of 2021

¶34

for the purpose of their industry for a period of 20 years in the year 1992 on

¶35

14% of per annum of the land value. However, on 19.12.2017, the 2nd respondent, viz., Tahsildar, passed an order, as if the petitioner not paid lease

¶36

amount from the year 2001 to 2012 and made a demand of Rs.3,29,277/-, however, prior to that, the petitioner filed Writ Petition nos.30687 and 30688 of

¶37

2005 to assign the lands, the said writ petitions were disposed of, however,

¶38

the prayer sought by the petitioner for assignment of lands was rejected. However, all of a sudden on 03.04.2019, the 2nd respondent, Tahsildar made

¶39

a claim as if the petitioner has to pay a sum of Rs.32,44,477/- contrary to the claim dated 19.12.2017 made by the 2nd respondent, viz., District Collector for

¶40

a sum of Rs.3,29,277/-, therefore, in view of the calculation error, the impugned orders has to be necessarily interpreted, accordingly, he prayed for appropriate orders. Further, at this stage, the learned counsel appearing for

¶41

the petitioner would submit that entire lease land, was surrendered to the Government, since the land is a water body.

¶42

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents though have filed

¶43

a detailed counter, however, there is no clarification with regard to the claim

¶44

3/7

¶45

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

¶46

WP Nos. 21494 of 2019 & 23152 of 2021

¶47

made by the Revenue Tahsildar in the year 2017 and subsequent claim made

¶48

by the District Collector in the year 2019.

¶49

Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the entire case and the

¶50

submissions made on either side, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition No.21494 of 2019 with the following directions:-.

¶51

(i) The petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.15 Lakhs before the

¶52

District Collector, Erode within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt

¶53

of copy of this order towards lease amount for the lands enjoyed by the petitioner.

¶54

(ii) On receipt of the said lease amount, the District collector, Erode is

¶55

directed to call for the entire records from the Revenue Tahsildar, Bhavani

¶56

Taluk and after providing an opportuity to the petitioner and other necessary

¶57

parties, conduct an enquiry and pass appropriate orders within a period of six

¶58

weeks thereafter, strictly in terms of Revenue Standing orders.

¶59

As far as the order impugned in W.P.No.23152 of 2021 is concerned,

¶60

the Revenue Tahsildar, Bhavani has issued a direction to the Sub Registrar,

¶61

Ammapettai not to entertain / register any document with regard to the

¶62

4/7

¶63

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

¶64

WP Nos. 21494 of 2019 & 23152 of 2021

¶65

petitioner's property in Padalkalvai, Bhavani Taluk and in Singampettai is not

¶66

sustainable one, mainly, when such a power is not available to the Tahsildar.

¶67

If at all there is any due to be recovered from the petitioner, the authorities have to collect the due under Revenue Recovery Act or any other Act, as prescribed from time to time and he does not have any power to direct the

¶68

Sub Registrar to not to register the property of the petitioner, which is legally unsustainable and hence this Court is inclined to allow the present petition (W.P.No.23152 of 2021) and set aside the order passed by the 3rd respondent

¶69

dated 07.09.2021.

¶70

Consquently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.

¶71

11-09-2025

¶72

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

¶73

ssd

¶74

5/7