Assignee’s Heirs Lose 4.8-Acre Land Assignment as Madras HC Upholds Cancellation for Lack of Cultivation Proof

In brief

The question

1. Whether the authorities were justified in cancelling the assignment for failure to comply with the condition requiring the land to be brought under cultivation.

The court held

The Court held that the appellants had not shown a basis to interfere with the cancellation of the assignment or the Single Judge’s decision.

It also directed

It dismissed the writ appeal, made no order as to costs, and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions.

01Facts

The appellants, substituted as the legal heirs of the deceased writ petitioner, claimed rights over 4 acres and 80 cents in Survey No. 198/12, Kizhaiyur Village, under Patta No. 804 issued in favour of the deceased assignee.

pp. 2–3

The patta was cancelled by proceedings dated 15 May 2006. The deceased successfully challenged that cancellation in an earlier writ petition; subsequently, after a further appeal was rejected, he filed W.P. No. 12414 of 2014, which was dismissed on 23 January 2024.

p. 3

The legal heirs appealed, contending that the land had been cultivated and that the revenue records did not establish otherwise.

pp. 3–4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the authorities were justified in cancelling the assignment for failure to comply with the condition requiring the land to be brought under cultivation.

pp. 5–6

ii.2. Whether the learned Single Judge’s dismissal of the writ petition disclosed any ground for appellate interference.

p. 7

03Law Applied

The assignment conditions produced by the respondents, stated to have been imposed under Board Standing Order No. 15, required the land to be brought under cultivation within three years and required the assignee and legal heirs personally to cultivate it; breach made the assignment liable to cancellation without compensation.

pp. 5–6

The Court also considered K.S. Jarina v. The Commissioner of Land Administration, which concerned the time limit for cancelling certain assignments made before 14 May 1973, but held that it was distinguishable on the facts.

pp. 4, 6–7

04Reasoning

The original assignment order was not produced, but the Deputy Tahsildar’s proceedings required agricultural use and compliance with Form-D conditions.

p. 5

The Adangal entries showed the land remained classified as *Tharisu*, with no recorded cultivation from the date of assignment through the consideration of the matter.

p. 6

The appellants produced no documentary evidence of cultivation, and counsel acknowledged that the revenue records did not reflect the alleged cultivation.

p. 6

The Court therefore found no basis to disturb the authorities’ finding of non-compliance. It distinguished K.S. Jarina because the appellants had not established compliance with the conditions governing this assignment.

pp. 6–7