The assigning authority has no jurisdiction to entertain applications for assignment of surplus land that are submitted beyond the time prescribed by the rules, and any orders of assignment based on such applications are illegal and void.

1. The matters arise under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Lands) Rules, 1965, hereinafter referred to as the Rules. The lands of one Vaiyapuri Pillai were the subject matter of proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Lands) Act 58 of 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act. After the lands were declared as surplus under the Act, the concerned Authorised Officer, the third respondent in these writ petitions issued and published a notice in July-August, 1972 for the assignment of surplus land under R. 4 of the Rules and in Form B prescribed by the Rules. There was no response from any one to this call. Hence Form B notice was issued and published a second time in September-October, 1972. Form B notice specifically provides that the applications for assignment shall be made within 30 days from the date of publication of the said notice. Respondents 4 and 5 in W.P. Nos. 1286 and 1287 of 1979, respondents 4 and 5 in W.P. Nos. 2406 of 1979 and respondents 4 to 6 in W.P. Nos. 2327 and 2407 of 1979 submitted their applications for assignment beyond the period of 30 days prescribed by Form B notice. These respondents will be hereinafter referred to as the assignee-respondents. The records show that the applications by the assignee-respondents were received only in February-March, 1973. Form D Notice listing out applications for assignment and fixing a date for enquiry was issued and published in March-April, 1973. At or about this time, the owner of the land Vaiyapuri agitated the matter further under the Act by way of revision and the proceedings under the Act and the Rules were obviously stayed and the stay continued till April, 1976. The third respondent passed orders of assignments in favour of the assignee-respondents in April, 1976. The petitioner in W.P. Nos. 1286 and 1287 of 1979 pleading want of knowledge of the proceedings relating to assignments under the rules, made applications for assignment in April, 1976 after orders of assignment were passed as aforesaid. On similar basis, the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 2327 and 2407 of 1979 made their applications for assignment in December, 1976. As against the orders of assignment in favour of the assignee-respondents, the petitioners agitated the matter by way of appeals before the District Revenue Officer concerned, the second respondent in these Writ Petitions. They could not succeed in appeals and therefore, the petitioners preferred revisions to the Land Commissioner, the first respondent in these writ petitions and the first respondent has also not countenanced the case of the petitioners. The orders of respondents 1 to 3 are being impugned in the present writ petitions.

2. The main contention urged by the petitioners before the second respondent and which is being repeated before me is that the assignments in favour of the assignee-respondents could not be sustained because the very applications for assignments were presented beyond the time prescribed and if the assignments in favour of the assignee-respondents were to be ignored on this basis, the question of assignment of the surplus land has got to be considered afresh, affording an opportunity to all concerned including the petitioners in this behalf. Now there is no dispute that the applications by the assignee-respondents were in fact presented beyond the time prescribed. In Vadivel Servai & others v. The Land Commissioner and others, 1 a Bench of this Court to which I was a party, held that the statutory rules compel the Authorised Officer, to fix a last date for receipt of applications for assignment of surplus lands and the applications filed beyond the time prescribed are liable to rejected on that ground. The same ratio has been reiterated by another Division Bench of this Court in

The Land Commissioner, and another v. Udayakumar. 2 It is true the said two Bench Judgments dealt with Form B prescribed under R. 4 of the Rules and the scope of R. 8 of the rules.