The legal point established is that challenging consequential proceedings without challenging the cancellation of assignment against the vendor and subsequent assignment in favor of others is impermissible under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Lands) Rules, 1965.

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records pertaining to the impugned Notice vide Rc.No.A1/761/2008 dated 14.07.2008 issued by the 3rd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents forbearing them from anyway disturbing the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property having an extent of 1.21 acres comprised in Survey No.59/02 in 23, Vengadamangalam Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram District consequently not to dispossess the petitioner without due process of law and allow the writ petition.)

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records pertaining to the impugned Notice vide Rc.No.A1/761/2008 dated 14.07.2008 issued by the third respondent and to quash the same and to consequently direct the respondents forbearing them from anyway disturbing the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property having an extent of 1.21 acres comprised in Survey No.59/02 in 23, Vengadamangalam Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram District, consequently not to dispossess the petitioner without due process of law.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner belong to Scheduled Caste Community and he is a poor, landless agricultural labourer. The petitioner worked as agricultural labourer to one Landlady Deivayanai Ammal for so many years. Out of the hard earned money, the petitioner purchased agricultural lands to an extent of 1 Acre 88 cents in S.No.59/2 in 23, Vengadamangalam Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram District, for a valuable sale consideration of Rs.56,400/- from one Egan S/o.Murugan by a registered sale deed dated 17.07.1989 and registered as Document No.2108 of 1989 in Book No.1 on the file of the Sub-Register, Guduvancheri.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that from the date of purchase, the petitioner was in continuous possession of the said lands. Thereafter, the Deputy Zonal Tahsildar issued patta in Patta No.103 for the said lands. Subsequently, out of the total extent of 1.88 Acres, the petitioner sold an extent of 0.45 cents of land to one Ponnammal by a registered Sale Deed in Document No.5404/2004 dated 04.10.2004 and further sold an extent of 0.22 cents to one Mahalakshmi by a registered Sale Deed in Document No.5225/2006 dated 06.03.2006 and the petitioner is in possession of the remaining 1.21 Acres of land.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that patta, chitta and adangal documents issued by the Deputy Zonal Tahsildar, Chengalpattu stands in the petitioner’s name. While being so, during March, 2008, the petitioner came to know that the lands to an extent of 1.00 Acres and 0.88 cents respectively comprised in S.No.59/2 were assigned to one Vasantha and Bhoopathy/respondents 7 and 8, by proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Villupuram dated 11.06.1993 without any notice or opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that immediately, the petitioner submitted his detailed representation dated 20.03.2008 to the respondents 1 to 6 for cancellation of the alleged assignment of the said lands in the name of Vasantha and Bhoopathy and to confirm his ownership. Since there was no reply, the petitioner sent objection petition on 15.04.2008 enclosing all relevant documents to prove the ownership of the above said lands and the same was received by the respondents 1 to 6, however, no order was passed by any of the Authority.

6. It is the further case of the petitioner that the third respondent without considering the petitioner’s representation and with malafide intention, colluded with the respondents 7 and 8, issued the notice dated 28.04.2008 calling upon the petitioner