The absence of a show cause notice does not invalidate authority action unless prejudice is shown; compliance with assignment conditions for land is crucial.

JUDGMENT :

S.M. Subramaniam, J.

The present intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent has been instituted to assail the writ order dated 06.04.2022 passed in WP.No.26866 of 2017.

2. ‘Natham’ house site to an extent of 0.01.0 Ares in Natham survey No.136/1 was allotted in favour of the appellant/writ petitioner vide assignment proceeding, dated 10.11.1994 under Revenue Standing Order.No.21(7)(ii), subject to terms and conditions as contemplated under the Revenue Standing Orders. The main conditions are that the house to an extent of the measurements mentioned in the schedule to the assignment order with roof made up of coconut leaf or tile shall be constructed within six/twelve months from January, 1994. Several other terms and conditions are stipulated in consonance with the Revenue Standing Orders, and in event of violation, the competent authorities are empowered to cancel the assignment.

3. In the present case, the revenue authorities, during the course of inspection found that the appellant has not constructed any residential house as per the conditions stipulated in the assignment order. Thus, initiated action and cancelled the assignment for resuming the Government property and to utilise it for public purposes. The cancellation of assignment came to be challenged in the writ proceedings by the appellant. Since writ petition was rejected, the present appeal preferred.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant would mainly contend that no show cause notice was issued before issuing the cancellation of assignment. That apart, thatched shed was constructed and therefore, it cannot be construed as if the appellant violated the terms and conditions. Regarding the assignment of Government land in favour of the wife of the appellant, learned Senior Counsel would submit that it is incorrect.

5. Learned Additional Government Pleader would oppose by stating that field inspection was conducted on the land, pursuant to the direction issued by this Court vide order dated 09.09.2016 in WP.No.16091 of 2012. Appellant was aware about the field inspection, and the authorities found that no residential thatched house was constructed within the time limit as stipulated in the assignment order. Assignment was made in the year 1994, and even during the inspection conducted after 17 years, the land was not utilized for the purpose for which it was assigned under the Revenue Standing Orders . Initially Revenue Divisional Officer conducted a detailed enquiry and found that appellant violated the conditions. The findings of the Revenue Divisional Officer are reiterated and reaffirmed by the District Revenue Officer, Perambulur in his order dated 18.09.2017. Thus, the present writ appeal is to be rejected.

6. This Court has considered the rival submissions between the parties to the lis on hand.

7. Free patta or assignment of Government land at free of cost is granted under the Revenue Standing Orders to the landless poor persons and to protect their livelihood. Therefore, in the event of violation of terms and conditions, the authorities are empowered to cancel the assignment and resume the land. In the present case, admittedly, the assignment was made in the year 1994. Field inspection was conducted pursuant to the order of this Court dated 09.09.2016 in WP.No.16091 of 2012. Appellant was aware of the field inspection, and during the course of enquiry before the Revenue Divisional Officer, the authorities found that the assigned land at free of cost has no