The amendment to Rule 9(1)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Rules is prospective and does not affect the rights of assignees who executed sales after the original 15-year period.

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the first respondent dated 11.05.2022 wherein the request made by the petitioner for patta came to be rejected and the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore, came to be confirmed.

2. Heard Mr.Sarath Chandran, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.P.Sathish, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents.

3. It is not in dispute that the subject property was originally assigned to landless poor. One of the assignee sold the property in favour of one Chithiraiselvi through a registered a sale deed dated 27.02.2002 registered as document No.336 of 2002. This sale deed was executed after nearly 19 years from the date of assignment. The said Chithiraiselvi sold the property in favour of one Kumaresan by a sale deed dated 31.08.2005. The said Kumaresan sold the property in favour of the petitioner’s vendor through a registered sale deed dated 31.08.2006 registered as document No.3563 of 2006. The petitioner purchased the subject property by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 21.04.2008 registered as document No.2042 of 2008.

4. It is also not in dispute that earlier Patta Pass Book was issued in favour of the vendors and all the revenue records stood in the name of the vendors. The same is evident from the proceedings of the fourth respondent dated 30.11.2006.

5. The petitioner submitted an application seeking for mutation of revenue records in his name. Based on the same, an inspection was conducted and a report was submitted before the third respondent. The third respondent, by proceedings dated 18.12.2016, cancelled the original assignment made in favour of Perumal and two others. This was done on the ground that the assignee had alienated the property before the expiry of 20 years. Aggrieved by the order passed by the third respondent, the petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent and the second respondent, through proceedings dated 06.06.2017, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the third respondent. Aggrieved by the same, a revision was filed before the first respondent and the first respondent rejected the revision and confirmed the order passed by the respondents 2 and 3.

6. The short issue that arises for consideration in the present case is the condition imposed while assigning the lands specifically stating that the assignee should not alienate the assigned land within fifteen years from the date of assignment. This condition was subsequently amended in the year 1987 wherein the time was enhanced from 15 years to 20 years. Therefore, it must be seen as to whether this subsequent amendment that took place in the year 1987 will bind the assignees, who had admittedly executed the sale deed after nearly 19 years from the date of assignment.

7. The issue in hand is no longer res integra and it is covered by the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.14295 of 2011 dated 20.07.2022. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder:

"8. There is no dispute that the petitioner's vendor namely Rengaraja Naidu was granted assignment for an extent of 1.10 acres vide proceedings dated 31.08.1983. The said assignment order is not a free assignment, but the assignee has to make payment of a sum of Rs.4207.20. Though the original authority has found that the payments have not been made on the date of alienation, the Appellate Authority has not found fault with the writ petitioner's vendor. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also produced the challans with regard to the payment made by the original assignee and the entire amount as contemplated in the original assignment order has been paid on 28.05.1997. Hence, there is no dispute that on the date when the sale deed was executed, the entire amount as contemplated in the original assignment date has been paid off by the said Rengaraja Naidu.

9. Clause 6 of the annexure to the original assignment order prescribes that a