O R D E R

The cancellation of assignment made by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Perambalur in proceedings dated 25.08.2023, is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.

2. The writ petitioners were assigned with the Government land under the Revenue Standing Order for the purpose of developing the cultivation. The original assignment was granted in the name of the father of the writ petitioners and after the demise of their father, the petitioners are cultivating the assigned land belonging to the Government.

3. The petitioners state that the people of that locality had given a representation to the District Collector, Perambalur on the 'Public Grievance Day' stating that the petitioners are not permitting the public to utilize the pathway earmarked for reaching the agricultural lands in that locality. In other words, the petitioners are illegally restraining the people of that locality from utilizing the public pathway and extending the cultivation in the pathway also. Based on the complaint, summons were issued to the petitioners and to the complainants to appear for an inquiry which was conducted on 24.01.2023. The petitioners have also appeared before the 1st respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, who in turn recorded the statement from the Village Administrative Officer, Noothappor village and heard the petitioners and the other villagers. But it is not in dispute that the petitioners had participated in the process of inquiry.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the inquiry was conducted on two occasions and the statement of the petitioners have not been recorded. On 26.07.2023, the Revenue Inspector of Pasumbaloor had given a report, considering the facts and circumstances and the statement of the Revenue authorities, the Revenue Divisional Officer had passed an impugned Order in proceedings, dated 25.08.2023, canceling the conditional assignment granted originally in favour of the father of the writ petitioners and now the subject land is under the possession of the writ petitioners. 5. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State has brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioners have already initiated a Civil Suit in O.S.No.12 of 2023, for the relief of declaration to declare the common pathway as their own land. The affidavit filed by the petitioners in paragraph 12 reveals that the petitioners had filed a Suit in O.S.No.12 of 2023 against the respondents for the relief of declaration, to the nearby land of the petitioners in Survey No.5/1 and 4/2 to an extent of 2,000 Square feet, which is an adjacent land and nowhere connected with the lands mentioned in the impugned Order. Therefore, it is apparently clear that the Suit was instituted for the relief of declaration to declare the portion of the land belonged to the petitioners.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners now made a submission that the petitioners have no objection for providing pathway. Mere statement now made before this Court after passing of the impugned Order and on institution of the Civil Court before the competent Civil Court cannot be trusted upon.

7. Conditional assignment of Government lands are granted to protect the livelihood of the landless poor people in the villages. Revenue standing orders empower the Government to assign the agricultural lands to protect the livelihood of the people of that locality. Whether the petitioners are eligible for such assignment of agricultural land or not itself is to be looked into. The original assignment was granted in favour of the father of the writ petitioners several years back. On account of efflux of time, the eligibility if continues or not, is to be ascertained by the competent Authorities of the Revenue Department. If the family members of the petitioners are not falling under the eligibility criteria i.e., landless poor people, then the assignments are to be canceled and the lands are to be re-assigned for the eligible and bona fide la