Natural justice requires that affected parties must be heard before adverse administrative actions are taken against them, particularly in land assignment matters.

ORDER

This writ petition challenges the common order dated 27.09.2023 made by the 1st respondent in his proceedings No.G2/24451/2010 confirming the common order dated 21.08.2020 made by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A2/2887/2010 cancelling the orders of assignment made in favour of (i) Mrs.Banumathi in respect of 0.81.0 Hectares of agricultural land comprised in S.No.49/4 vide assignment order dated 15.06.2007; (ii) Elumalai in respect of 0.81.0 Hectares of agricultural land vide assignment order dated 15.06.2007; and (iii) Muthuraman in respect of 0.70.0 Hectares of agricultural land vide assignment order 15.12.2009; situate at Aswanagasuranai village, Chengam Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District.

2. The brief facts leading to the filling of the present writ petition are as under:-

(i) The petitioners belong to landless poor agricultural labour families.

(ii) During the budget speech made in the floor of Assembly 2006-2007, the Government of Tamil Nadu announced that poramboke waste land of the Government would be developed into cultivable land and distributed to poor landless farmers two acres each. Accordingly, a Special Scheme for allotment of land to landless poor labour families, 2006 was floated by the Government of Tamil Nadu.

(iii)The petitioners were identified as the eligible beneficiaries under the said Scheme and accordingly, they were allotted lands as mentioned above by the individual orders of the 3rd respondent. The petitioners were in possession and enjoyment of the lands assigned to them by cultivating the lands.

(iv) While so, all of a sudden, the assignments made in favour of the petitioners came to be cancelled by the 2nd respondent without any proper inquiry by his order dated 21.08.2010. On appeals preferred by the petitioners, the 1st respondent by order dated 27.09.2023, confirmed the order of the 2nd respondent.

(v) Challenging the order of the 1st respondent confirming the order passed by the 2nd respondent cancelling the assignment orders, the petitioners are before this court with the present writ petition.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent opposing the writ petition and inter alia contending that during the public grievance day, a petition was made by Aswanagasuranai village public alleging that lands in question were assigned to the petitioners without following rules and requesting for cancellation of the assignments. Pursuant to the said petition, a report was submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvannamalai in his proceedings in Na.Ka.A4/3128/2010 dated 15.06.2010. Based on such report, a site inspection and inquiry were conducted by the District Revenue Officer, Tiruvannamalai. Thereafter, the District Collector, Tiruvannamalai, by his order dated 21.08.2010 cancelled the assignment made in favour of the petitioners and the lands were restored as “Unassessed Waste”.

4. The 1st respondent further contended that as the lands in question are situate within the prohibited distance of 50 meters radius from the adjoining quarry and the lands contain a stone known as charnockite which is a valuable type of rock found in certain geological formations and there is a possibility of quarrying almost 93000 cubic meters of stones in the lands. With respect to land in S.No.49/1, quarries were functioning on the same and the quarries have been temporarily suspended pursuant to the orders of the Government in order to maintain the Narayanaswamy Temple Hall ancient inscription by the Archaeology Survey of India. The lands in S.Nos.49/3, 49/4 and 49/5 are classified as “Tharisu” and there are mineral wealth present in the subject lands more particularly, Charnockite type of stones are found in the lands in question.

5. Heard both sides.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were identified as eligible beneficiaries under the Scheme and they were assigned lands for agricultural purposes. The petitioners were cultivating the lands a