The prohibition against alienation of assigned land remains valid if the petitioner fails to meet the payment requirements as per statutory rules.

Muralee Krishna S., J.

The petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

“(a) call for the records leading to Ext.P5 and quash Ext.P5 by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction;

(b) declare that the directions issued in Ext.P5 is contrary to Rule 8 of Kannan Devan Hills (Reservation and Assignment of Vested Lands) Rules, 1977 and against the dictum laid down in Ext.P7 judgment;

(c) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2^nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 in the light of the dictum laid down in Ext.P7 judgment.”

2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of a parcel of land having an extent of 0.4446 hectares in Resurvey No.213 Part (Old Sy No.77/1) of Block No.19 in Mankulam Village of Devikulam Taluk. Ext.P1 order of assignment on registry in terms ofRule 13of theKannan Devan Hills (Reservation and Assignment of Vested Lands) Rules, 1977(the ‘Rules’ for short), was issued in favour of the petitioner during the year 2000. It would show that he was allotted plot No.290/99, and the extent of land was shown as 0.50.00 hectares in Sy. No.77/1. Since the 2ndrespondent failed to issue a challan, in spite of several requests, the petitioner approached this Court, and by Ext.P2 judgment, this Court directed the 2ndrespondent to do the needful immediately. In terms of the directions contained in Ext.P2 judgment, Ext. P3 patta in form No.6 in terms ofRule 16of the Rules was issued on 07.11.2022. Ext. P3 would show that the patta was issued in respect of an extent of 0.04446 hectares in Re-Survey No.213 Part (old Sy. No.77/1) of Mankulam Village. Ext.P4 is the basic tax receipt dated 18.04.2023 issued by the Village Officer, Mankulam Village, in respect of the property in question. While so, the petitioner approached the 4threspondent, Sub Registrar, Devikulam, for assigning a portion of the property. But, he was informed that in view of Ext.P5 communication dated 17.08.2020 issued by the 2ndrespondent to the 4threspondent, the lands assigned in terms of the Rules cannot be alienated for a period of 12 years from the date of issuance of the patta. On coming to know about Ext.P5 communication issued by the 2ndrespondent, the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 request dated 27.01.2025 before the 2ndrespondent, pointing out that in view ofRule 8of the Rules, and Ext.P7 judgment dated 13.01.2022 in W.P.(C) No. 3977 of 2013, the directions contained in Ext.P5 cannot be sustained. By Ext.P7 judgment, this Court held that what is relevant is the date of the order of assignment on registry and not the date on which 'Patta' was issued. Hence, the petitioner filed the writ petition.

3. The 3rdrespondent filed a counter affidavit dated 29.07.2025 in the writ petition, opposing the relief sought for and producing therewith Exts.R3(a) and R3(b) documents. Paragraphs 2 to 4 of that counter affidavit read thus:

“2. The above Writ Petition is not maintainable either on law or on facts. The petitioner has suppressed the facts and filed the present Writ Petition by producing incorrect documents. The contention of the petitioner that he has applied for patta for 0.4446 Hectares of land in Block No.19 Resurvey No.213 Part (Old Sy. No. 77/1) of Mankulam Village, Devikulam Taluk and he has received the Order of Assignment under Rule 13 of the Kannan Devan Hills (Reservation and Assignment of Vested Lands) Rules, 1977 on 21.12.1999. His contention is that subsequently, the patta has been issued on 07.11.2022. Sinc