S V SOWMI NARAYANAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR RAMANATHAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this Writ Petition is the proceedings of the Second Respondent dated 13.03.2001 confirming the cancellation of Assignment in favour of Petitioner's Father " Venkateseshadri.

(2.) FACTUAL background of the case are as follows:- Land measuring 0.01.04 sq.mt classified as Natham in S.No.243/3 at Tharaikudi was assigned to Petitioner's Father " Venkateseshadri by Tahsildar, Kamudhi in the proceedings dated 28.12.1997. The beneficiary did not construct the house in the site assigned to him within the stipulated period of 12 months. After the demise of the beneficiary, his son viz., the Petitioner sold the assigned property to the Village Maravar Sangam for a sum of Rs.12,960/- on 12.05.2000 without obtaining permission of the Government. For violations of the conditions of assignment, by the Impugned Proceedings dated 09.08.2000, the Third Respondent has cancelled the Assignment given to Venkateseshadri. Against that order, the Petitioner filed an Appeal before the D.R.O, Ramanathapuram " the Second Respondent. By the Impugned Proceedings dated 13.03.2001, the D.R.O has confirmed the order of R.D.O cancelling the assignment granted to Venkateseshadri, which is challenged in this Writ Petition.

(3.) HAVING regard to serious allegations of fabrication of documents of assignment, the Court has called for the entire records. The documents are eloquent enough evidencing assignment in favour of the Petitioner's Father " Venkateseshadri in 1997. An extent of 0.01.04 sq.mt in S.No.244/3 at Tharaikudi Village was assigned to the Petitioner's Father " Venkateseshadri in H.S.D.C.732/1407 dated 28.12.1997. As seen from the copy of the Assignment, the Assignment is duly signed by Tahsildar, Kamudhi. On the relevant date, the assignment was not only in favour of the Petitioner's Father, but also in favour of five other individual persons viz., Muthirulayee, Kayambu, Irulandi, Katturajan and Bhoopathy. In performance of such official function like granting of assignment, the Court would start with the presumption that the official acts by the revenue official has been duly and regularly performed. When allegations of fabrication of assignment is made, the burden is heavy upon the Petitioner, who alleges fabrication of the assignment.