JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.)

1.Under assail is the order passed in WP.(MD)No.16593 of 2024 dated 13.08.2024.

2.Originally, the respondent/writ petitioner challenged the impugned order passed by the third appellant dated 08.07.2024 and consequential direction to the third appellant herein to restore the patta in the name of the respondent/writ petitioner.

3.It is the case of the writ petitioner that she purchased the property in question on 05.10.2001. The patta was also issued in her favour. Thereafter, the patta was cancelled by the third appellant. Challenging the same, the writ petitioner filed an appeal filed before the second appellant/District Revenue Officer, Dindigul District and the same was also dismissed. There upon, he filed writ petition, in WP. (MD)No.11841 of 2023 and the same was allowed by this Court on 12.05.2023 and the matter was remitted to the file of the third appellant/Revenue Divisional Officer. In pursuance of the order of this Court, an enquiry was conducted and the impugned order dated 08.07.2024 came to be passed and held that land in question is a Government land/ Assessed Waste. Earlier proceedings dated 23.11.1994 issued by the Tasildar for issuance of patta was cancelled. Challenging the same, writ petition came to be filed. The learned Writ Court allowed the writ petition on the ground that the sale in favour of the petitioner had taken place 23 years ago. The appellants effected mutation of revenue records in view of the execution of the sale deed. It is not open to the appellants to exercise the power of cancellation on a suo motu basis after a lapse of close to three decades. Aggrieved over the same, the State has preferred the present appeal.

4.The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants would submit that land in question in S.No.20/1 admeasuring to 0.38.0 hectares, was given on assignment dated 18.08.1978, whereas the third appellant herein in his report, has stated that as per the records available in the Revenue Department, no such assignment was given to anyone in respect of the subject property and hence, the genuineness of the alleged order in DKT 172/82, assigning the land toVijayarajan, the writ petitioner's predecessor in title, cannot be confirmed. More over, in 'A' register as well as the Village records, the subject land is shown as 'Assessed waste land'. The learned Writ Court ought not have been entertained the writ petition, without the writ petitioner exhausting the statutory appeal remedy available before the Director of Settlement and Survey, Chennai. The cancellation of patta has been done within a reasonable period from the date of knowledge of the alleged fraud and therefore, the order of the learned Writ Court is liable to be interfered. The then Revenue Divisional Officer has proceeded with the the forged assignment order and the sub division order passed by the incompetent authority, viz., Assistant Settlement Officer, as if they are genuine and passed by the competent. The appellants herein was attempted only to safeguard or protect the Government property and not to drag on the matter and therefore, the order of the learned Writ Court is liable to be dismissed. The observation of the learned Writ Court that the writ petitioner is obviously a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration and the sale that took place under the aegis of the High Court, is not sustainable in law.

5.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent / writ petitioner would submit that originally the property in question was assigned to one Vijayarajan, through proceedings in DKT.No.172/82 dated 18.09.1978. In 1995, the said Vijayarajan sold the property to M/s.Maxima Investments and Finance. Then, by an order dated 18.08.1998, in WP.Nos.12437/1997, 12684/1997 and LP.No.18/1997, the High Court of Madras framed a scheme to vest the administration and management of the said company in favour of the administrator. The resp