M.Sathiyamoorthy vs. The District Collector

Held

The Court held that the third respondent was not justified in cutting and removing trees from Survey No. 100, as the tender notification and the order issued to him clearly specified only Survey No. 165. The arguments of the learned Government Pleader and the Tahsildar were not accepted because the tender notification was unambiguous. Consequently, the auction conducted was set aside. The Court directed the Tahsildar to conduct a re-auction for the removal of trees from both Survey Nos. 100 and 165, covering the correct extent of land available in both. Regarding compensation for the third respondent, who had cut trees from approximately 5.25.0 hectares, the Court noted the value of remaining trees was Rs. 90,252/- and the value of trees cut was Rs. 14,948/-. The third respondent was entitled to a refund of Rs. 90,252/- along with proportionate GST already paid. The Court also permitted the third respondent to remove the trees already cut, but no further cutting was allowed. The GST collected from the highest bidder in the next auction could be adjusted towards the refund of GST to the third respondent.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging orders dated 20.07.2024 and 20.08.2024 passed by the Tahsildar, Kamuthi. The petitioner alleged that the third respondent, who was the successful bidder for cutting and removing Prosopis juliflora trees in Survey No. 165, had instead cut and removed trees from Survey No. 100. The tender notification and the order confirming the bid explicitly mentioned only Survey No. 165. The Forest Department's inspection report confirmed the petitioner's claim. The Government Pleader and the Tahsildar argued that the auction was for both survey numbers, covering a total extent of 75.89.50 hectares. The third respondent had cut trees from approximately 5.25.0 hectares.

Key Issues

1. Whether the third respondent was justified in cutting and removing trees from Survey No. 100 when the tender notification and subsequent order only pertained to Survey No. 165? (Question of fact and law, turning on the interpretation of the tender notification and the order of allotment). Petitioner's contention: The third respondent acted illegally by cutting trees from Survey No. 100, as the tender was exclusively for Survey No. 165. The impugned orders are therefore liable to be quashed. Revenue/State's contention: The auction was intended to cover both Survey Nos. 100 and 165, encompassing the entire extent of 75.89.50 hectares, and the third respondent was authorized to cut trees from both. 2. What compensation and relief is due to the third respondent, considering the trees cut and the amount paid?