SC-assigned land sold in breach of conditions reverts to ordinary wasteland, not land reserved for SC-only reallotment, Madras High Court rules

The petitioners challenged a common order dated 23 September 2024 cancelling their pattas for lands in Survey Field Nos. 124/A8–A14, on the ground that the lands had originally been assigned to Scheduled Caste beneficiaries subject to restrictions on alienation.

The petitioners claimed through purchasers who had acquired portions of the lands from the original assignees between 1995 and 2002; the petitioners’ pattas had subsequently been mutated in their names.

The assignment, made in 1985 to 14 beneficiaries, prohibited alienation for ten years and thereafter permitted transfer only to persons belonging to the SC/ST communities, subject to prior permission.

The Court found that the subsequent transfers were to persons outside those communities.

Whether breach of the assignment conditions required the lands to be resumed by the Government and, if so, what legal character the lands acquired upon that breach.

Whether the revenue authority’s cancellation of the petitioners’ pattas was sustainable, and whether the pattas should be restored.

The Court applied Revenue Standing Order (RSO) 15(41)(4)(iii), which provides that where the non-alienation condition is violated, or the land ceases to be held by the assignee, the grant is liable to be resumed by the Government, which may re-enter and take possession without compensation or refund of the purchase money.

The Court reasoned that, in the circumstances of this case, breach of the assignment conditions followed by the Government’s failure to resume the land meant that it reverted to ordinary Government Tharisu (wasteland), rather than retaining a restricted assigned-land character; it distinguished the land from Panchami land, which it said must be re-allotted only to SC members.

The Court found that the transfers to non-SC/ST purchasers breached the assignment conditions.

It construed the RSO as authorising Government resumption, but held that no resumption or re-entry had occurred.

It further noted that the authorities had issued and mutated pattas over time, recognising the parties’ possession, and concluded that the land had reverted to ordinary Tharisu land rather than remaining land reserved for SC beneficiaries.

On that basis, it found the impugned cancellation rested on an erroneous presumption about the land’s continuing character as assigned land and was unsustainable.

Both writ petitions were disposed of without costs.