A spouse’s existing assignment ordinarily disqualifies another family member from seeking assignment patta.

The petitioner challenged the Commissioner of Land Administration’s order affirming cancellation of an assignment patta for land in S.No.120/60, Sullankudi Village.

He asserted that his father had purchased the property in 1962 and that he had later occupied it.

The Revenue Divisional Officer had rejected a third party’s claim, but the District Revenue Officer cancelled the patta because construction had not been made within the stipulated period.

The Commissioner affirmed the cancellation, additionally relying on the fact that an assignment patta had already been issued to the petitioner’s wife for land in S.No.120/70.

The petitioner argued that he had an independent title through his father and that he had not been given notice of this additional ground.

Whether the petitioner’s assertion of an independent title through his father warranted interference with the cancellation of the assignment patta.

Whether affirming the cancellation on the ground that the petitioner’s wife had already received an assignment patta, without prior notice to the petitioner, caused prejudice warranting interference.

The Court cited no specific statute or precedent.

It applied the principles that a person claiming an independent title may establish that title separately and seek revenue patta through the appropriate legal process; cancellation of an assignment patta does not, by itself, determine or extinguish any independent title.

It also reasoned that, ordinarily, two members of the same family are not eligible to obtain assignment pattas under the scheme, and that lack of prior notice on a ground relied upon in an order does not warrant relief where the material fact is not specifically denied and no resulting prejudice is shown.

The petitioner’s claim that his father purchased the land was inconsistent with his reliance on an assignment patta: if he had an independent title, cancellation of that patta would not affect it, and he could establish the title and seek revenue patta separately.

As to notice, the petitioner did not deny that his wife had already received an assignment patta, nor explain why that fact did not make him ineligible under the scheme.

The Court therefore found no demonstrated prejudice from the absence of notice concerning that ground.

It clarified that the petitioner remained free to establish any independent title before the competent Civil Court in accordance with law.

No costs were awarded.