Authorities cannot cancel land assignments if they have previously accepted alienations and effected mutations in the revenue records.

ORDER :

1. The writ petitioner challenges the order of the second respondent in NE.Mu.A2/7975/2021 dated 03.12.2021 and consequent proceedings of the first respondent dated 12.07.2022 and consequently seeks restoration of patta in favour of the petitioner.

2. I have heard Mr.R.Murali, learned counsel for the petitioner, M.Lingadurai, learned Special Government Pleader, for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.S.Palanivelayutham, learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 5. I have also gone through the records.

3. The case of the writ petitioner is that larger extent of lands comprised in survey No.213 were classified as Government Punja Tharisu lands. The Government formulated a scheme to assign lands to landless persons and survey No.213 was subdivided and pattas were granted to eligible persons. It is the further case of the petitioner that an extent of 0.35.5 Ares, in survey No.213/16 was granted in favour of one Mareeswari, W/o Selvaraj, vide proceedings dated 02.05.2007 and similarly in respect of another extent of 0.35.5 Ares in survey No.213/7, patta was granted in favour of one Thangaraj, S/o. Sakkari Nadar, vide proceedings of even date. The said assignees have alienated the properties in favour of the petitioner, who has purchased the said lands by sale deeds dated 29.05.2018 and 05.06.2018, both documents being duly registered. The petitioner, even at the time of presenting the document for registration, was required to get a No objection certificate from the Tahsildar, Kovilpatti, to enable the Sub Registrar, Ettayapuram, to go ahead and register the sale deed. The Tahsildar, Kovilpatti has also issued a letter to the Sub Registrar, Ettayapuram, confirming that the survey No.213/6 is not Government Tharisu and it has been mutated in the name of Mareeswari. Based on the said letter of the Tahsildar, the sale deed was registered by the Sub Registrar, Ettayapuram. Subsequent to the purchase, the petitioner has approached the third respondent for transfer of patta. The third respondent also acted upon the said application of the petitioner and vide proceedings dated 12.05.2018, effected mutation of patta in the name of the petitioner in respect of both survey Nos.213/6 and 213/7. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the said lands and has also obtained electricity service connection, dug a bore-well and cultivating the said lands by effecting improvements to the lands, out of the hard earned money of the petitioner.

4. While matters stood there, the respondents 4 and 5 claimed the property comprised in survey Nos.213/6, 213/7 and 241/1 were their ancestral properties and made a claim to the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Revenue Divisional Officer, on enquiry, did not accept the claim of the respondents 4 and 5 in respect of survey Nos.213/6 and 213/7, but however found that the original assignees Mareeswari and Thangaraj had violated the condition of assignment by selling the property to the petitioner and cancelled the original assignments in favour of Mareeswari and Thangaraj.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal to the District Revenue Officer. The respondents 4 and 5 also preferred an appeal to the District Revenue Officer, since their case was also not accepted by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The first respondent confirming the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, dismissed both the appeals and directed the name of the Government to be restored as the owner of the survey No.213/6 and 213/7.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the revenue officials had already effected transfer of patta in favour of the petitioner in as early as on 12.07.2018 and all along the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the subject lands, the respondents ought not to have cancelled the assignment. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that no proper enquiry was conducted and the original assignees whose ass