Infirmity found in the order of collector set right.

Raju, J.

These two writ appeals have been filed against, the order of a learned single Judge of this Court, dated 23. 1991 in W.P.No.1881 of 1987, whereunder the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for, and quash the proceedings of the State Government in their letter dated 2. 1987 confirming the order of the Commissioner, Land Administration, dated 112. 1983. The appeal in W.A.No.1228 of 1991 has been filed by the 4th respondent in the writ petition and W.A.No.1446 of 1991 has been filed by the State Government and the other authorities in the Department, who were the remaining respondents in the writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner/first respondent herein has been assigned with an extent of 2 cents of land in Survey No.1/3 (wet) with a well thereon by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukkottai at Ramanathapuram, by his proceedings dated 112. 1960 on collection of a sum of Rs.1,515 stipulated to be the market value of the property. Some of the ayacutdars at Muthuramalingapuram village appear to have made representations and the Collector of Ramanathapuram at Madurai by his proceedings dated 26. 1978, after giving a show-cause notice and an opportunity to the first respondent has ordered the cancellation of the assignment of the land with samudhayam well situated thereon. The first respondent pursued the matter before the Board of Revenue, which came to be rejected and the thereupon before the Government. The Government in G.O.Ms.No.2421, Revenue Department, dated 21. 1980 referred the matter and the first respondent writ petitioner to the Board of Revenuefor orders on his petition and it was at that stage, the Commissioner, Land Reforms and Land Administration by his notice dated 110. 1981 proposed to revise the order of assignment is the purported exer- cise of his powers under the Board’s Standing Orders (B.S.O) 15 (18). After giving an opportunity and after hearing the first respondent-writ petitioner, the Commissioner, Land administration passed an order dated 112. 1983 and recording a finding that the assignment made suffered material irregularity, the order of cancellation earlier passed was not interfered with and the appeal of the first respondent came to be dismissed. Once again the first respondent herein went before the Government and the Government rejected the claim of the first respondent by its proceedings dated 2. 1987. The first respondent herein filed the writ petition as noticed earlier before this Court to quash the proceedings dated 2. 1987 and 112. 1983.

.3. The learned single Judge though repelled the challenge made to the proceedings under which the cancellation of assignment was ordered on the ground that it was beyond the period of limitation contained in B.S.O. for the Collector to invoke his power of cancellation of an assignment, relying upon the fact that the Board of Revenue (Commissioner of Land Reform and Land Administration) has issued a showcause notice and this would rectify matters since the power of Board of Revenue is not circumscribed with any time limit as in the case of the District Collector. On merits the learned single Judge accepted the contention of the first respondent-writ petitioner that the assignment made was valid and that the challenge to the assignment was born out of jealousy of some of the villagers and consequently, the vitiating circumstance pointed out by the Collector as also by the Board of Revenue as undermining the legality and propriety of the assignment are not well merited and therefore, called for interference. Hence, the above two appeals.

4. Mrs.Prabha Sridevan, learned counsel for the appellants in W.A.No.1228 of 1991 and Mr.R.Subramanian, learned Special Government Pleader for the appellant in W.A.No.1446 of 1991 made submissions contending that the reasons assigned by the authorities below to cancel the order of assignment in favour of the first respondent are well merited and that the