ORDER

The case of the petitioners is that the lands in Survey Nos.132/4, 132/5, 132/6, 132/7, 132/8, 132/9 in Pannamuppanpatti Village, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District have been in possession of the petitioners and their ancestors since 1942. The lands have been used for agricultural purpose and have been cultivated by the petitioners for many decades. The Government has brought about a scheme for distribution of lands for the landless agricultural labourers and the lands have been assigned to several landless poor to an extent of half an acre minimum and two acres maximum to each of the poor landless agricultural family.

2.In furtherance of the scheme of assigning lands to the landless poor agricultural labourers, the petitioners herein were given patta by proceedings dated 09.10.2006 by the competent authority and since then the petitioners have been paying all the taxes pertaining to the lands in their possession. According to the petitioners, the lands have been used for Jasmine cultivation for a period of 40 years and they have also obtained loan to the extent of three lakhs rupees for sustaining their Jasmine cultivation. The loans have been obtained from the Indian Bank, Usilampatti, Madurai.

3.While matter stood thus, it appears that the respondents 9 and 10 attempted to trespass into the property of the petitioners and sought to disturb their possession and enjoyment of the property sometime in the year

2015.

4.In the above circumstances, the petitioners had approached the first respondent in 2015 complaining that illegally the respondents 9 and 10 had been carrying out quarrying operations in portions of the land assigned to them. Having received no reply in response to the complaint, one of the petitioners approached this Court in W.P.(MD)No.12746 of 2016 seeking a direction to forbear the respondents 9 and 10 from quarrying in the lands which were assigned to the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the Writ Petition was disposed of. When the Writ Petition was pending, the second respondent appeared to have issued an order on 12.01.2017 directing the subordinate official to cancel the patta granted to the petitioners. The second respondent's order directing cancellation being passed behind the back of the petitioners in order to favour and accommodate the interest of the quarry operators, namely, 9 and 10 respondents, this Court was approached.

5.The cancellation of assignment dated 12.01.2017 was challenged in W.P.(MD)No.15171 of 2017. When the said Writ Petition was pending, the second respondent has passed the present order impugned in this Writ Petition dated 08.06.2018 cancelling the assignment without putting the petitioners a notice at all. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

6.Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the patta was issued as early as in 2006 and without hearing the petitioners it was suddenly cancelled in 2018 on the ground that the land was actually given for quarry lease to the respondents 9 and 10 for a period of 20 years from 1997 to 2017. The learned Counsel would submit that the land could not have been given for lease, as there was no quarry operation at all till recently, as the lands in fact had been in occupation of the Writ Petitioners and used for cultivation through the year.

7.The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that even otherwise patta was granted as early as in 2006 to these petitioners as a consequence of valid assignment which cannot be cancelled or re-called after several years, that too, without hearing the petitioners. When an adverse order of this nature was to be passed, the most rudimentary principle of natural justice, namely, opportunity of hearing ought to have been afforded to the petitioners. In the absence of any notice to the petitioners, the impugned order is liable to be set aside as being patently illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable.

8.Mr.Veera Kathiravan, learned Senior Couns