1. The father of the petitioners in W.P.No.4354 of 2012, purchased 2.87 acres of land in old survey No.620/A and R.S.No.358/1 at Karumandichellipalayam Village, Perundurai Taluk in Erode District by way of execution of a sale deed from one Thiru. Selvanayagam. Thiru. Selvanayagam, the vendor who sold the property to the father of the petitioners belongs to scheduled caste. Thiru. Selvanayagam was given conditional assignment of 3.48 acres of land comprised in old survey No.620/A and R.S.No.358/1 at Karumandichellipalayam Village, Perundurai Taluk in Erode District, on 27.2.1924. The petitioners being the sons of the purchaser are entitled to 2.87 acres.

2. The legal heirs of the aforesaid Thiru. Selvanayagam sold 17 ¾ cents to one T.C. Murugan on 4.7.1994 in old Survey No.356/4 (S.F.No.624/B), Karumandichellipalayam Village, Perundurai Taluk in Erode District. Thiru. T.C.Murugan sold the said land measuring 17 ¾ cents to the petitioners in W.P.No.4355 of 2012 on 8.8.2010. A registered sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioners.

3. Whileso, a separate show cause notice dated 23.9.2011 was issued by the first respondent based on the report given by the second respondent that the sale of land to the petitioners took place in violation of the condition of assignment of lands to scheduled caste people. The petitioners were directed to show cause as to why the land shall not be resumed to the Government. The petitioners were directed to give reply within 15 days either in person or through representation.

4. The petitioners in W.P.No.4354 of 2012 gave their representation dated 16.11.2011 to the aforesaid show cause notice. In the representation dated 16.11.2011, the petitioners stated that the period prescribed in the assignment prohibiting the sale came to an end and therefore, the sale was in order. It is admitted that Thiru. Selvanayagam was given assignment of land since he belongs to Scheduled Caste and the land was also assigned with conditions. It is further stated in the representation that Thiru. Selvanayagam sold the properties to meet the needs of his family and the sale was voluntary. The petitioners wanted to drop the proceedings.

5. The petitioners in W.P.No.4355 of 2012 also gave a representation on 24.10.2011.

6. Thereafter, the first respondent passed separate impugned orders dated 22.12.2011 stating that the sale was in contravention of Clause 15 (41)(4)(i) of the Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue. The first respondent stated that the lands are resumed for the Government under Clause 15 (41) (4) (iii) of the Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue.

7. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid impugned orders in these writ petitions.

8. While admitting the writ petitions, this Court has granted interim stay of the impugned orders on 27.2.2012 in M.P.No.1 of 2012 in W.P.No.4354 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 in W.P.No.4355 of 2012.

9. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit refuting the allegations and also filed M.P.Nos.2 and 2 of 2012 to vacate the interim stay in both the writ petitions.

10. The first respondent has relied on the relevant Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue under Clause 15 (41)(4) (iii) in support of their action.

11. Heard both sides.

12. The learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that there is no evidence for the assignment of land to Thiru. Selvanayagam with conditions. The respondents have not produced the assignment order prescribing the conditions that the assignee shall not alienate the land to non scheduled caste people. The learned counsel has submitted that the petitioners are innocent purchasers and they cannot be made to suffer. Since the order of assignment is not produced, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. Secondly, the learned counsel has submitted that the impugned orders are contrary to the judgement of the Apex Court inManche Gowda and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported in (1984) 3 SCC