P KUMAR Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER VELLORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The cancellation of assignment made by the District Revenue Officer in his proceedings dated 27.05.2005 is under challenge in the present Writ Petitions.

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners articulated the case of the petitioners by stating that the father of the writ petitioners had applied for the grant of agricultural land for cultivation. The Second respondent in his proceeding dated 31.05.1993 assigned the land to an extent of 0.61.0 hectare in S.No.229/11 and 0.56.0 hectare in S.No.229/14 situated at Thandalam Village, Arakkonam Taluk in favour of the father of the writ petitioner in W.P.No.26181 of 2005 and to an extent of 1.61.0 hectares in S.No.229/7 situated at Thandalam Village, Arakkonam Taluk in favour of the father of the writ petitioner in W.P.No.26182 of 2005 at free of cost.

(3.) As per the conditions of the assignment order, the father of the petitioners had to convert the assigned land as a cultivable agricultural land within a period of 3 years from the date of assignment. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that their father had converted the barren land into an agricultural land by his hard work and was doing irrigation. The father of the writ petitioner in W.P.No.26181 of 2005 passed away on 09.12.1993, and thereafter, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property assigned in favour of his father. The petitioners also have put their efforts for the development of the cultivation in that assigned land. In paragraph No.4 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition in W.P.No.26181 of 2005 it is stated that the petitioner had erected a small construction on a portion of the land with a view to provide education to the down trodden community people living in that locality. Based on the complaints given by some ill-motivated persons the respondents had initiated action, conducted an enquiry and passed the impugned order, analyzing the assignment initially granted in favour of the father of the writ petitioners. Thus, the petitioners have constrained to move the present writ petitions.