The central legal point established in the judgment is that the distribution of surplus land to landless individuals should be in accordance with the relevant laws and rules, and decisions that frustrate this purpose can be set aside.

1. The four petitioners, who are residents of Andal Kuppam Village, Saidapet Taluk filed a revision under Section 83 of the Tamilnadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 before the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, challenging an order dated 03.04.2000. The said revision petition was not numbered.

2. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was renumbered as CRP No.1954 of 2003. However, a learned Judge of this court opined that no Civil Revision Petition will lie as the officers whose orders under challenge were not a Court but only statutory authorities. Therefore, the CRP was converted into writ petition and notice was ordered.

3. The case of the petitioners was that they are the legal heirs of late Kuppusamy who held land in S.No.259/2A of Kadapakkam Village as cultivating tenant. After the demise of Kuppusamy, the petitioners continue to hold the land as cultivating tenant under the Vennkkanna Chowdry Charity to whom the land belonged to. A proceeding under Land Reforms Act was initiated and notification under Section 18(1) was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 24.03.1982 declaring that the land measuring to the extent of 1.24 acres in S.No.259/2A was surplus. In view of the declaration, the land so declared as surplus stood vested with the Government and it has to be allotted to landless poor in terms of Surplus Land Rules. Even among those landless poor, a person under holding of the land either as tenant or otherwise coming within the purview of landless poor can have a preferential claim over other persons.

4. It was submitted that, after notification under Section 18(1) dated 24.03.1982 the Assistant Commissioner, the second respondent initiated action to assign surplus lands by issuing notice in Form ‘B’. The Authorised Officer by an order dated 03.02.1983 assigned the land in S.No.259/2A in favour of Murugesan (60 cents) and Muthu (64 cents) without confirming to the provisions of the Act. The request for the issue of certified copies of the order was turned down by the Authorised Officer. Hence the petitioners filed a writ petition being W.P.No.8635/1983. By an order dated 04.10.1993, this Court directed the Authorised Officer to issue a certified copy of assignment proceedings.

5. After receipt of the order dated 03.02.1983, the petitioners preferred an appeal to the Land Tribunal, Thanjavur. The appellate authority declined to entertain the appeal holding that the petitioners were not aggrieved parties. Once again the petitioners filed W.P.No.7900 of 1985. In view of the formation of the Tribunal, the matter was transferred to the Tribunal and re-numbered as TRP.181/1991. The Appellate Tribunal directed the appellate authority to take up the appeal and to dispose of the same on merits.

6. The Appellate Authority took up the appeal filed by the petitioners and issued notice to the respondents and also directed the Special Tahsildar to conduct a special enquiry. After enquiry and verification, the appellate authority found that the proceedings were not properly followed in case of assignment and consequently cancelled the assignment dated 03.02.1983 in favour of Murugesan and Muthu. After the said order, it was found that the land in question were under the enjoyment of Kuppusamy Naicker and his father Thiagaraja Naicker and after the death of Kuppusamy Naicker, the legal heirs of Kuppusamy Naicker.

7. Subsequently, the Authorized officer again initiated proceedings for the assignment of land in favour of the petitioners. At the time of issuance of patta in favour of the petitioners by the Authrosied Officer, the first respondent preferred a revision before the Land Commissioner stating that she had purchased the land measuring 12 cents by a sale deed dated 09.03.1992 and also obtained an interim stay of grant of patta. Finally, the Land Commissioner on 26.10.1999 held that the declaration of surpl