The court held that cancellation of land assignment must be supported by valid documentation and lawful procedures, emphasizing that public orders should be judged solely on the reasons stated within them.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. SUNDAR, J.

1. The present writ appeal is preferred by the District Collector, Kancheepuram District and other revenue officials as against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 05.03.2020 allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent herein in WP.No.3959/2020 to quash the proceedings of the District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram District, 2^nd appellant herein, dated 27.07.2017 and to direct the appellants herein to issue patta to the respondent/writ petitioner in respect of the land measuring an extent of 1.67.0 Hectare in S.No.262/2 in Chinnavenmani Village.

2. Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this writ appeal are as follows:

3. The land which is the subject matter of this appeal, namely, an extent of 1.67.0 Hectare in S.No.262/2 in Chinnavenmani Village, was originally assgined in favour of one Tmt.Rubavathi Ammal by proceedings dated 23.12.1967. The assignment was of course, subject to conditions as found in D-Form Patta. Tmt.Rubavathi Ammal executed a Sale Deed in respect of the said property in favour of one Dhanapal Naicker vide Sale Deed dated 24.08.1978. It was thereafter the said Dhanapal Naicker sold the property in favour of the respondent herein/writ petitioner by a registered Sale Deed dated 23.11.1992. Though patta was transferred in the name of vendor of the writ petitioner/respondent herein, on the application filed by the writ petitioner for mutation of patta in his name, the Tahsildar, Maduranthakam Taluk, who is the 4^th appellant herein, vide proceedings dated 04.08.2009, rejected the application. Thereafter, the respondent herein filed a writ petition challenging the order of Tahsildar and the said writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 21.12.2009. Since the Tahsildar while rejecting the application for mutation, proceeded as if the writ petitioner was seeking assignment, this Court while quashing the order of Tahsildar, remitted the matter to the 4^th appellant herein/Tahsildar to reconsider the issue and pass orders within stipulated time. It was thereafter the Tahsildar/4^th appellant herein, rejected the representation on the ground that the land is a Government poramboke land and had been registered as Punjai Tharisu in Village Accounts.

4. The fact that the land had been assigned in favour of Mrs.Rubavathi Ammal and thereafter, there was transfer of patta in the name of the subsequent purchaser, was not even referred to in the order of Tahsildar. Thereafter, when the writ petitioner/respondent herein filed another writ petition in WP.No.4470/2012, the said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent herein to file an appeal against the order of the 4th appellant herein. Thereafter, the respondent herein filed an appeal before the District Revenue Officer, 2^nd appellant herein and the 2^nd appellant rejected the appeal vide proceedings dated 27.07.2017.

5. The operative portion of the order of the 2^nd appellant dated 27.07.2017 reads as follows:-

6. A counter affidavit was filed by the 4^th appellant herein to the effect that the assignment in favour of Tmt.Rubavathi Ammal was cancelled by the 2^nd appellant herein vide proceedings dated 17.12.1980 by referring to the entry in the Village Chitta for the Fasli year 1388. Therefore, the only defence taken by the Tahsildar in his counter affidavit is that the assignment granted in favour of Tmt.Rubavathi Ammal was cancelled vide order dated 17.12.1980.

7. The order of 2^nd appellant was impugned in the writ petition filed by the respondent herein in WP.No.3959/2018. The learned Single Judge, after finding that only the assignment granted in S.Nos.262/1 and 263 was cancelled by proceedings dated 23.08.1983 as per the report of the Tahsildar, held that the case of the Tahsildar that assignment in favour of Tmt.Rubavathi Ammal was cancelled, is not established by production of records. The learned Judge also noticed that the entry in the chitta shows cancellation