O R D E R

The writ on hand has been instituted, questioning the validity of the order of the Tahsildar in R.C.A4/2279/2017 dated 15.02.2018.

2. The petitioner states that he was assigned 21 cents of Government land under a scheme for landless poor persons. Patta was issued in favour of the writ petitioner in patta No.1399 to an extent of 8.50 ares. The petitioner himself states that on account of water scarcity, he could not do agricultural works, or plant Teak wood tree or Sandal wood tree. However, he has planted Plantain tree, Lemon tree, Pomegranate tree, Guava tree and eked out his livelihood. The petitioner states that he has no other source of income. Under Annai Kudiyirupu Scheme of the Government, he constructed a small house with asbestos sheet to an extent of 400 sq.ft. The petitioner states the he is living along with his family. Electricity and water connections are provided. In the remaining land, the petitioner is cultivating vegetables.

3. The petitioner states that taking advantage of his partial blindness, the 4th respondent Mr.A.Arulappan encroached upon the land assigned in favour of the writ petitioner and constructed a house. The petitioner questioned the same and subsequently the said Arulappan filed O.S.No.27 of 2013 before the District Munsif Court, Polur, for injunction. The 4th respondent, suppressing the filing of the civil suit instituted a writ petition in W.P.No.38882 of 2016 for a direction to issue patta in his favour. This Court directed the authorities to consider the application submitted by the 4th respondent for grant of patta. Thereafter, the petitioner also instituted a civil suit in O.S.No.7 of 2018 before the District Munsif Court, Polur, for a declaration and to remove the encroachments made by the 4th respondent.

4. The respondents 1 to 3 conducted an inspection and initiated action, and consequently cancelled the assignment granted in favour of the writ petitioner through the impugned proceedings. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the order impugned has been passed without conducting any inquiry and the encroachment made by the 4th respondent was also questioned by the petitioner. Those aspects were not considered by the authorities and the impugned order has been issued. Thus it is to be set aside.

6. The learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, raised an objection by stating that the competent authorities issued a show cause notice on 30.05.2017 to the writ petitioner. After conducting an inquiry, the Tahsildar, along with the Survey Officials, conducted a field inspection. On conducting the field inspections, the authorities came to know about the fact that the assigned land was not utilised for cultivation for more than 20 years, and the petitioner and the 4th respondent have constructed houses, obtained electricity service connection, water connection and thereby violated the assignment conditions. The details of the constructions were also stated in the impugned order. Since the assignment conditions are violated by the assignees, the competent authorities cancelled the assignment by invoking the powers conferred under Revenue Standing Order 15(3)(2)(xi).

7. The assignment conditions unambiguously stipulates that the assigned lands are to be utilised only for cultivation. In the event of utilising the assigned land for any other purpose, the Government is empowered to inflict ground rent. In the event of violation of any of the assignment conditions, the authorities competent are empowered to cancel the assignment under the revenue standing orders. Condition No.3 also stipulates that 3 years from the date of assignment, the petitioner shall convert the assigned land as cultivating land and in the event of failure, the assigned land will be treated as Government lands. Conjoint reading of condition 3 and 7 would indicate that the authorit