Buyers Lose Government-Assigned Farmland Sold During 30-Year Ban as Madras HC Upholds Resumption

The petitioners were subsequent purchasers and patta holders of lands originally assigned free of cost to poor and landless persons in 2006.

The assignment terms prohibited alienation for 30 years.

After finding that the original assignees had transferred the lands within that period, the Sub-Collector cancelled the assignments and ordered resumption.

The petitioners challenged those orders, arguing, among other things, that the Sub-Collector lacked jurisdiction, that cancellation was barred by a three-year limitation, and that they were bona fide purchasers who had relied on mutated revenue records.

Under RSO No.15(3)(2)(xi), the Tahsildar is competent to resume non-valuable assigned land, while the Revenue Divisional Officer is competent to resume valuable land; “valuable” lands are described in RSO No.15(3)(2)(vi), and specially valuable lands are addressed in RSO No.15(22).

RSO No.15(15) provides an appeal from a Tahsildar’s decision to the Divisional Officer, from a Divisional Officer’s decision to the Collector, and from the Collector’s decision to the Commissioner of Land Administration.

The three-year period under G.O.Ms.No.2555 applies to cancellation for material irregularity in the assignment procedure or decision, not to resumption for a subsequent breach of assignment conditions.

The Court distinguished T. Tirumalai Gounder v. State of Tamil Nadu, P. Mohanavalli v. Revenue Divisional Officer and K. Chinnapandi v. Alagarsamy, which concerned assignments permitting transfer with official permission; mutation was treated in those cases as implied permission.

That principle did not apply to an assignment imposing a total prohibition on alienation during the lock-in period.

The Court held that the Sub-Collector’s authority depended on whether the lands were valuable: the sale deeds in most cases described the lands as dry and recorded a value exceeding ₹1,000 per acre, supporting treatment as valuable lands and the Sub-Collector’s jurisdiction.

Even if any land were non-valuable, the Sub-Collector was a superior authority, and RSO No.15(15) preserved an appeal to the Collector; the petitioners were therefore not deprived of an appeal.

The three-year limit did not apply because the proceedings addressed later breaches of the assignment conditions, rather than irregularities in the original assignments.

Nor could the petitioners rely on mutation or bona fide purchase: the 30-year restriction imposed a total ban on alienation, unlike the permission-based conditions considered in the cited cases, and purchasers were expected to verify the original assignment terms.

Finding no valid reason to interfere with the resumption orders, it dismissed all writ petitions, made no order as to costs, and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions.