The Tahsildar lacked jurisdiction to assign valuable lands, rendering such assignments null and void, and the petitioner was afforded due process in the administrative proceedings.

ORDER :

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the order of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.6614/2024/A4 dated 19.11.2024.

2. I have heard Mr.M.Jerin Mathew, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.C.Satheesh, learned Government Advocate for the first respondent, Mr.G.Prabu Rajadurai, learned counsel for the second respondent and Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu, learned counsel for the third respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has purchased the lands in survey Nos.263/B, 263/D and 263/C and the above lands were assigned by the assignment proceedings dated 23.02.2001 and patta Nos.684, 685 and 686 were also issued to the petitioner. However, the case of the petitioner is that the first respondent has proceeded to cancel the assignment in favour of three vendors from whom the petitioner has purchased the property.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after purchase of the property on 25.08.2014, the petitioner has taken over possession and has been in absolute possession and enjoyment, without any interference by any third parties and that the petitioner had been doing cultivation in the said lands. The further case of the petitioner is that the third respondent sought for lease of the lands for doing agriculture and approached the petitioner and the petitioner also accepted the said request of the third respondent and executed a registered lease deed dated 27.08.2024. According to the petitioner, the third respondent is doing cultivation and carrying out agricultural activities in the said lands. As there was interference to the third respondent's possession of the subject lands, the third respondent filed W.P.(MD)No.3924 of 2024 to forebear the official respondents from interfering with his possession. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 21.02.2024, clarifying that quarried minerals will not be through the petition mentioned patta land of the writ petitioner and that the quarry operator will have to adopt some other alternative route. The petitioner claims to be unaware of the dispute between the respondents 2 and 3. According to the petitioner, the impugned order is vitiated on three grounds. Firstly, the impugned order violated the principles of natural justice; secondly, the order passed by the first respondent is a malafide exercise, since the first respondent is an interested party, who has granted lease to the second respondent and therefore, he cannot be a judge of his own cost; and thirdly, the assignment could not be cancelled after a lapse of 10 years alleging violations. He would place reliance on the judgment the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in T.Tirumalai Gounder and another V. State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 2010-5-L.W.-289 as well as in W.A.(MD)No.1272 of 2022 (K.Chinnapandi V. Alagarsamy) and the case of The Commissioner of Land Administration V. K.S.Jarina reported in MANU/TN/5632/2023. The learned counsel for the petitioner would therefore pray for the petition being allowed.

5.The learned counsel for the third respondent, Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu, would contend that the third respondent is a lessee from the petitioner and in and by the registered lease deed, the third respondent has taken over the property and after lapse of several years, the petitioner has approached the revenue authorities seeking cancellation of the assignments and such belated exercise is not permissible in law and such similar cancellation of assignments have been come down heavily by this Court. He would also advance the arguments in line with the arguments advanced by the writ petitioner, with regard to the malafide exercise of power by the first respondent.

6. The learned Government Advocate, Mr.C.Satheesh, for the first respondent would contend that there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the first respondent and no exception can be taken to the said impugned order, since the v