The State's power to cancel land assignments must be exercised within a reasonable timeframe, and failure to provide original assignment documentation undermines the validity of such cancellations.

ORDER :

P.B. Balaji, J.

The issue in all these writ petitions being one and the same, with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing in all these matters, Writ Petitions have been heard together and being disposed of by a common order.

2.I have heard Mr.Babu Rajendran, learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(MD)Nos.2065, 4407 & 4471 of 2023 and Mrs.Jasima Yasmin, for M/s.Ajmal Associates, learned Counsel petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.18345 of 2024, Mr.Veera Kathiravan, learned Additional Advocate General for the official respondents in all these Writ Petitions.

3.The common issue in all these Writ Petitions is touching the power of the State to cancel assignments, alleging violation of conditions of assignments.

4.In W.P.(MD)No.2065 of 2023, the case of the petitioner is that the property comprised in S.No.4/5 to an extent of 2.02.50 hectares was assigned to one Palaniappan Mathari, under Barren Land Improvement / Waste Land Improvement Scheme, prior to the year 1967. The said assignee Palaniappan Mathari, also availed a loan on 01.08.1967, for construction of a well. The Government sanctioned the said loan in terms of the Land Improvement Loan Act, 1883. It is the further case of the petitioner that the said Palaniappan Mathari, also obtained further loans from Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board in March, 1982. That apart, he also stood as a surety and the subject property was also offered as security for the loan obtained by one Chinnan from the Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board, under Document No.335 of 1982. It is the further case of the petitioner that the said loans were all duly repaid and even a further mortgage created on 03.09.1992 in Document No. 972/1992, was also discharged on 11.07.2000. The said Palaniappan Mathari and his son Selvaraj, for lawful consideration, sold a portion of the subject lands measuring 2 acres and 47 cents in favour of the petitioner's brother, one Vanjimuthu. The said Vanjimuthu, executed a Settlement Deed in favour of the petitioner in and by registered Document No.585 of 2010 dated 28.05.2010.

5.Thereafter, the original owner, Palaniappan Mathari and his legal heirs sold the southern portion measuring 2 acres and 43 cents to the petitioner's father Arumuga Gounder on 28.09.2015 in Document No.884 of 2015. The said Arumuga Gounder, settled the said property in favour of the petitioner's brother Vanjimuthu, in and by registered Settlement Deed dated 14.07.2016. Subsequent to the settlement, the petitioner's brother Vanjimuthu, also availed a loan from Canara Bank, by depositing title deeds.

6.While matters stood thus, the second respondent lodged a false complaint before the first respondent claiming to be the grand- son of one Subban Mathari and alleging that the lands assigned could not be alienated to non-dalit persons and on that basis, he sought for cancellation of the assignment. The petitioner appeared before the first respondent and sought for the nature of the complaint lodged by the second respondent and prayed time to make his submissions. However, the first respondent, according to the petitioner, without granting sufficient time to the petitioner, proceeded to hold that the lands were assigned to Adi-Dravidar people and there has been violation of conditions and thereby cancelled the assignment and directed recovery of lands, besides also mutation of the revenue records. The said order of the first respondent is under challenge in W.P.(MD)No.2065 of 2023.

7.In W.P.(MD)No.4407 of 2023, the petitioner being a purchaser from Subban Mathari, has made similar averments to that has been made by the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.2065 of 2023 and challenges the order of the first respondent dated 31.12.2022, cancelling the assignment. The petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.4471 of 2023, is a similarly placed Writ Petitioner, who also challenges the order of the first respondent dated 31.12.2022, cancelling the assignment.

8.The petitioners in W.P.(MD)No.18345 of 2024, also challenge t