The cancellation of land assignments after 21 years was deemed illegal as the conditions of assignment conferred absolute rights post 10 years, and the reasons for cancellation were not substantiated.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the first respondent dated 04.5.2023.

2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

3. The case of the petitioners is as follows :

(i) The properties measuring 62.05.0 hectares of Government lands, which were classified as Sarkar punjai in S.No.262 at Mangulam Group Village, Manamadurai Taluk, Sivagangai District were subdivided into S.Nos.285/1 to 300/4 and the assignment was granted in favour of 67 persons under Standing Order No.15 of the Board of Revenue as per the proceedings of the fifth respondent dated 29.1.1985. Pursuant to that, the property in New S.No.300/4 was assigned in favour one Mrs. Kasthurilalitha, from whom, the first petitioner purchased it vide sale deed dated 12.7.2000 registered as doc.No.1227 of 2000 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Manamadurai.

(ii) Similarly, the properties in S.Nos.292/2 and 296/4 totally measuring 5 cents were purchased by the first petitioner from the original assignees through the sale deed dated 19.7.2000 registered as doc.No.1229 of 2000 on the file of the same Sub-Registrar. The vendors of the first petitioner were also issued with the patta. Ever since the dates of purchase, the first petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the same.

(iii) After purchase, on 11.8.2000, the first petitioner applied to the second respondent for the grant of lease to quarry. It is worthwhile to make a mention here that the Village Administrative Officer, Manamadurai Taluk gave a report dated 10.8.2000 stating that the properties purchased by the first petitioner were unfit for cultivation and recommended to grant lease for quarrying. Another report dated 18.8.2000 was issued by the Village Administrative Officer, Mangulam Group Village to the same effect.

(iv) The said reports were acted upon by the second respondent, who, by proceedings dated 23.8.2000, directed the fifth respondent to submit a report on the application of the first petitioner dated 11.8.2000 requesting for lease to quarry. The fifth respondent also submitted a report on 31.8.2000. The second respondent, through proceedings dated 21.9.2000, granted lease in the name of the first petitioner for three years. The lease agreement was entered into vide agreement dated 27.9.2000 between the first petitioner and the second respondent and it provides for certain terms and conditions and the lease was granted from 27.9.2000 to 26.9.2003 in respect of the properties purchased by the first petitioner in S.Nos.292/2, 296/4 and 300/4 measuring 3.00.5 hectares.

(v) In so far as the second petitioner is concerned, the assignment was made in his favour with respect to the property in S.No.290/2 measuring 0.96.5 hectare. Patta was also issued in his favour in patta No.835. Similarly, an extent of S.No.290/1 measuring 0.96.5 hectare was assigned in favour of the third petitioner and patta was also granted in his name in patta No.834.

(vi) Likewise, an extent of 0.81.0 hectare in S.No.287/4 was assigned in favour of the fourth petitioner and patta was also mutated in his favour in patta No.858. The properties in S.No.289/4 measuring 2.50 cents and S.No.290/3 measuring 0.96.5 hectare were assigned in favour of one Mr.Alagusamy vide proceedings of the fifth respondent dated 29.1.1985. Patta was also mutated in his name in patta No.836. The said Mr.Alagusamy sold the properties assigned in his favour to one Mr.N.Selvam vide two sale deeds dated 16.6.2000 and 27.7.2003 registered as doc.Nos.1989 of 2000 and 1009 of 2003 respectively on the file of the same Sub-Registrar for a valid sale consideration. Patta was also mutated in the name of the said Mr.N.Selvam. After the demise of the said Mr.N.Selvam on 25.12.2021, petitioners 5 to 8 inherit his estate as his legal heirs.

(vii) The specific case of petitioners 2 to 8 is that the properties assigned to/bought by them are u