WP(MD)/36391/2025 of Geetha S Vs The District Collector on 16 October 2026

1. The District Collector Collectors Office, Theni - 625 531.

2. The District Revenue Officer Theni Collectors Office, Theni - 625 531.

3. The Sub Collector Periakulam, Theni District - 625 605.

4. The Tahsildar Andipatti Taluk, Andipatti - 625 612, Theni District. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of resumption of assigned lands issued by the 3rd respondent dated 07.11.2025 in Roc. No.7993/2025/A8-34 and quash the same as arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to restore the petitioners Patta No.8701 relating to the petitioners patta land in S. No.87/38 measuring an extent of 0.36.0 Hectares situated at Myladumparai Village, Andipatti Taluk, Theni District and pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s): Mr.Niranjan S. Kumar in W.P.(MD)Nos.36391 to 36430 of 2025 Mr.K.Samidurai in W.P(MD)Nos.33501 to 33503 and 33483 of 2025 For Respondent(s): Mr.J.Barathan Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.L.Siva Government Advocate (civil) for R1 to R4 in all Wps. Mr.D.Saravanan for R5 in W.P.(MD)Nos.33501 to 33503 and 33483 of 2025

C O M M O N O R D E R These writ petitions are filed challenging the orders passed by the third respondent/Sub-Collector cancelling the assignment of the property in favour of the predecessors in interest of the petitioners on the ground that the original assignees violated the conditions of assignment.

2. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are purchasers of land from the persons who were assigned with “Government Poramboke Tharisu land” under RSO.No.15 with a condition that there should not be alienation of the property for 30 years. The land in S.No.87/1 measuring an extent of 30.45.0 Hectares in Myladumparai Village, Andipatti Taluk, was originally classified as “Arasu Poromboke Tharisu”. The same was subsequently sub divided and assigned free of cost to poor and landless persons for carrying out agricultural operations. As per the original terms of assignment, the assignees are prohibited from alienating the subject property within 30 years from the date of assignment.

3. It is also not in dispute that the original assignments were made in the year 2006, Subsequently, the original assignees sold the property to third parties and the properties changed hands, in some cases more than twice. The third respondent initiated proceedings for resumption of land for violation of conditions of assignment. Notice was issued to the concerned parties including the present owners/pattadhars. After entering the finding that original assignees sold the properties within the lock-in period mentioned in the assignment orders, cancelled the assignment of the lands in favour of original pattadhars and passed orders for resumption of land by Government. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners have come before this court.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the third respondent has no jurisdiction to pass impugned order as the original assignment was made by fourth respondent. It is also submitted that in view of order passed by the third respondent instead of fourth respondent, the petitioners were deprived of right of appeal. The learned counsel relying on G.O.Ms.No.2555, Revenue Department, dated 14.05.1973 would submit that cancellation of the assignment orders can be done only within three years and in all these cases, the impugned cancellation orders have been passed nearly after 18 years from the date of assignment. It is also submitted that the original assignees sold the properties to third parties and purchasers from the original assignees moved the revenue authorities and got the records mutated in their names.

5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners, after verifying the title documents of their vendors and revenue records in their names, purchased the properties from the third party purchasers. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are bonafide purchasers of the land without having knowledge about the conditions in the original assignment. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the impugned orders cancelling the assignment in favour of original assignees ought not to have been passed without considering the bonafide claim of the petitioners.

6. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the following decisions:

1. P.Mohanavalli Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer in W.P (MD).No.12923 of 2022

2. T.Tirumalai Gounder Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others in W.A.No.1374 of 2008

3. K.Chinnapandi Vs. Alagarsamy and three others in W.A(MD).No.1272 of 2022.

7. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents by drawing the attention of this Court to RSO.No.15(15) would submit that any order passed by the Tahsildar, the Revenue Divisional Officer or the Collector is liable to be questioned by filing an appeal before the immediate higher authority mentioned in the said order. Therefore, in the case on hand, the orders have been passed by the Superior Authority, namely the third respondent and his orders are liable to be questioned by filing an appeal before the Collector. Therefore, the petitioners are not deprived of any right of appeal and no prejudice is caused to them by the impugned orders passed by the Superior Authority.

8. The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that G.O.Ms.No.2555, Revenue Department, dated 14.05.1973 relied on by the petitioners is not applicable to the present case as the resumption is resorted to for violation of assignment conditions. It is also submitted that the petitioners, without verifying the title of the predecessors in interest under the parent documents purchased the properties within the lock-in period of 30 years. Therefore, they are not entitled to claim themselves as bonafide purchasers.

9. The first and foremost point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners is with regard to the jurisdiction of the third respondent to cancel the assignment. According to the petitioners, the original assignment orders were passed by the Tahsildar and therefore, only Tahsildar is entitled to resume the land and in the case on hand, the resumption orders have been passed by the Superior Authority, namely, the Revenue Divisional Officer/ Sub-Collector.

10. It is the specific contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that had the orders been passed by the Tahsildar, the petitioners could have challenged the same by filing appeals before the Revenue Divisional Officer. In view of the passing of the impugned orders by the officer in the cadre of Revenue Divisional Officer/ Sub-Collector, the petitioners are deprived of their valuable right of appeal. Therefore, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

11. RSO.No.15(3)(2)(xi) would indicate that the competent authority to resume the land in case of breach of conditions of assignment shall be Tahsildar if the land is non-valuable. In case, the land is valuable, the competent authority to resume the land is the Revenue Divisional Officer. RSO.No.15(3) (2) (vi) defines valuable lands in following words: “ Valuable lands includes dry lands the estimated value of which is Rs.1,000/- or more per acre, wet lands, irrigable dry lands and such other lands defined as “valuable” in paragraph 22 of Revenue Standing Order No.15.”

12. RSO.No.15(22) defines specially valuable lands which reads as follows:

II. SPECIALLY VALUABLE LANDS

(22) Land which is specially valuable (1) Disposal of specially valuable lands - (i) Classes of specially valuable lands :- Lands falling under the following classes shall be treated as specially valuable :- (a) Land which is registered as wet under, or is likely to be brought under irrigation from a Government source of irrigation deriving its supply from a major irrigation system for which capital and revenue accounts are kept.

(b) Land which is registered as wet under, or is likely to be brought under irrigation from, a Government source of irrigation which does not derive its supply from a major irrigation system for which capital and revenue accounts are kept.

(c) Land irrigable or likely to be brought under irrigation from an irrigation project under execution at the cost of the State.

(d) Land which has a special value by reason of its being in large village.

(e) Land at the disposal of the Government included within the limits of towns but which is not disposed of as building site under Revenue Standing Order No.21

(f) Any other land which the Collector may for special reasons consider to be specially valuable.

(g) Dry land the estimated value of which is Rs. 1000/- or more per acre.

(h) Lands in the proximity of towns. Note:- The note "shall have the same meaning" as that given in Paragraph 8 of R.S.O. 21.

13. In the case on hand, it is not clear whether the properties assigned in favour of the petitioners are valuable lands or non-valuable lands. In most of the writ petitions in the sale deed in favour of the petitioners, the property is described as dry land and the value of the property is also mentioned as more than Rs.1,000/-. In such cases, the assigned properties shall be treated as valuable lands. If it is so, the competent authority to resume is the Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub-Collector and in the case on hand, the Sub-Collector has passed the impugned orders. Therefore, the objection as to the jurisdiction of third respondent is not sustainable. On the other hand, if we treat the subject property as non-valuable land, the

competent authority to resume the land is the Tahsildar as per RSO.No.15(3)

(2) (xi). In the case on hand, the resumption orders have been passed by the Superior Authority, namely, the Sub-Collector. It is contended that in view of the orders passed by the Superior Authority, the petitioners are deprived of their valuable right of appeal. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to RSO.No.15(15), which reads as follows. Appeals : From every original decision in darkhast cases whether it is passed by the Tahsildar, the Divisional Officer, or the Collector, one appeal shall be allowed, provided that it be made within 30 days of the date on which the original decision was pronounced or communicated if the appeal is from the Tahsildar to the Divisional Officer or from the Divisional Officer to the Collector and within 60 days, if it be from the Collector to the Commissioner of Land Administration. In computing the period of limitation the day on which the decision appealed against was pronounced or communicated and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of that decision shall be excluded. On all copies issued shall be entered the date of the decision or communication, the date of application for copy, the date on which the copy was ready for delivery and the date on which the appeal time expires. Any persons interested in the matter may appeal. Appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer and to the Collector in Darkhast cases should be stamped with a court fee label to the value of two rupees and appeals to the Commissioner of

Land Administration should be stamped with a court fee label to the value of five rupees. From every original decision in the matter of assignment of house sites to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other eligible persons by the Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare) concerned from the lands acquired with the funds of the Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department and taken possession of, one appeal shall be allowed to the District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer provided, it is made within thirty days from the date on which the decision appealed against was pronounced or communicated and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decision shall be excluded. On all copies issued, shall be entered the date of decision or communication, the date of application for copy and the date on which the appeal time expires. Any person interested in the matter may appeal. Appeals to District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer shall be stamped with a court fee label of Rs.2/-.

14. A perusal of the same would indicate that in cases where resumption order is passed by the Tahsildar, an appeal will lie to the Revenue Divisional Officer and where the order is passed by the Divisional Officer, an appeal will lie to the Collector and where the order is passed by the Collector, an appeal will lie before the Commissioner of Land

Administration. Therefore, in the case on hand, even if the order was passed by the Superior Authority, namely Sub-Collector, an appeal will lie before the Collector. The petitioners are not deprived of the valuable right of appeal merely because the order is passed by the officer in the cadre of Sub- Collector. Hence the first objection raised by the petitioners with regard to the jurisdiction and the deprivation of right of appeal is rejected.

15. It was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners by drawing the attention of this Court to G.O.Ms.No.2555, Revenue Department, dated 14.05.1973 that the cancellation of assignment can be done only within three years from the date of assignment. A perusal of the above said Government Order would indicate that three years limitation for cancelling the assignment was prescribed, where there has been material irregularity in the procedure or in the decision with regard to the assignment. In the case on hand, the original assignment orders are not cancelled due to the irregularity in the assignment procedure or decision thereon. The resumption is resorted to due to the violation of assignment conditions by the assignees. Therefore, the three years limitation period specified in the above mentioned Government Order is not applicable to the case on hand. The cancellation of assignment and resumption of land is resorted to due to the subsequent violation of condition by the assignees. The condition No.4 of the assignment order in “D Namuna” would indicate that the assignees are prohibited from alienating the assigned property for thirty years from the date of assignment. In case they decide to alienate the property after thirty years, they can do so after getting prior permission from the Tahsildar or the Revenue Divisional Officer as the case may be.

16. By relying on G.O.(Ms).No.2555 if we say cancellation can be done only within three years from the date of assignment, in case of violation after three years, the respondents will be disabled from cancelling the assignment. In such an eventuality, prescribing a condition in the assignment order that there shall not be any alienation for a period of thirty years will become redundant and unenforceable. Therefore, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners by the relying on G.O. (Ms)No.2555 is not appealable to this Court and the same is rejected.

17. It is not in dispute that in all these cases, the original assignees sold the properties to third parties and the writ petitioners who are all the present patta holders of the properties purchased the subject properties from the purchasers from the original assignees. It is vehemently contended that after verifying the title documents and the revenue documents in the name of petitioners’ vendors, they purchased the property bonafidely without knowledge of the assignment conditions. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the 3rd respondent nearly after 18 years from the date of assignment cannot be sustained.

18. In nutshell, it is the case of the petitioners that they had no knowledge about the conditions of original assignment and therefore, they are bonafide purchasers. The petitioners while purchasing the properties should have verified the parent title documents and the conditions of original assignment. When the assignment orders in favor of petitioners’ predecessors in interest clearly prohibit alienation of assigned properties in favour of third parties within 30 years from the date of assignment, the subsequent purchasers cannot claim that they are bonafide purchasers without having knowledge about the prohibition against alienation.

19. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Tirumalai Gounder case cited supra. In the said case, as per the assignment order therein, there was a prohibition against alienation for ten years without permission of the Revenue Authorities. Disregarding the said condition, assignee sold the property to third party and the petitioners therein purchased the properties from the third party and revenue records were also mutated in the name of the petitioners therein. On the facts of that case, this Court held that Revenue Authorities having mutated the revenue records in favour of the purchasers from the assignee and also the writ petitioners therein impliedly granted permission for alienation within the period of ten years. Therefore, even in the absence of express permission for transfer, the act of the authorities in mutating the revenue records was sufficient to hold that there was permission on the part of the officials. Therefore, the subsequent order passed by the officials cancelling the assignment on the ground of alienation within ten years without getting prior permission from the revenue authorities was set aside by this Court on the ground that there was implied permission by mutation of revenue records. The said decision of the Division Bench was followed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Mohanavalli case cited supra. Again, the said decision was followed by another Division Bench of this Court in Chinnapandi case cited supra, wherein it was held as follows: A Division Bench of this Court in T.Tirumalai Gounder and another vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2010-5L.W. 289, referred to supra, has only said that once mutation of revenue records has been made, absence of permission will not vitiate the sale. In the case on hand, as we could seen from the order, mutation of revenue records was effected after every sale. Therefore, we do not see any reason to fault the Writ Court for having allowed the writ petition in toto.

20. In all these cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners, as per the assignment condition, alienation of the property within the lock-in period was permissible with the permission of the Revenue Authorities. However, alienation was made without getting permission from the Revenue Authorities. This Court held that mutation of revenue records by the revenue officials in favour of the purchaser would amount to implied permission for alienation and hence the alienation cannot be treated as the one made without permission of the revenue authorities to entitle the officials to cancel the patta. The fact situation in the present case is entirely different. Here, there is a prohibition against alienation within 30 years from the date of assignment. In other words, I would like to emphasize the prohibition against the alienation is total and there is no clause in the assignment order permitting alienation within the lock-in period with the permission of the revenue authorities. The conditions stipulated in the assignment order only says, in cases, where the alienation takes place subsequent to the expiry of 30 years, the permission is required from the revenue authorities. Therefore, as far as lock-in period of first 30 years are concerned, there is a total prohibition against alienation. No alienation is permissible either with or without permission of the officials. Therefore, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners by relying on the above mentioned case laws are not appealable to this Court, in view of the peculiar condition in the case on hand prohibiting the assignees from alienating the properties for 30 years either with or without permission of the revenue authorities. Hence, all these case laws relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not helpful to support their case.

21. In the light of the discussions made earlier, I do not find any valid reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent. Accordingly, all these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 16.10.2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes ub Note: The Registry is directed to issue order copy by incorporating the cause title in all cases.

To

1. The District Collector Collectors Office, Theni - 625 531.

2. The District Revenue Officer Theni Collectors Office, Theni - 625 531.

3. The Sub Collector Periakulam, Theni District - 625 605.

4. The Tahsildar Andipatti Taluk, Andipatti - 625 612, Theni District.

S. SOUNTHAR, J. ub WP(MD) Nos. 36391, 33483, 33501, 33502, 33503, 36407, 36408, 36409, 36410, 36411, 36412, 36413, 36414, 36415, 36416, 36417, 36418, 36419, 36420, 36421, 36422, 36423, 36424, 36425, 36426, 36427, 36428, 36429, 36430, 36396, 36395, 36394, 36393, 36392, 36402, 36401, 36400, 36399, 36398, 36397, 36406, 36405, 36404 and 36403 of 2025 16.10.2026