IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 11.04.2011 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.NOS.24285 AND 24286 OF 2010 1.Ramachandran ... Petitioner in W.P.Nos.24285 of 2010 2.A.P.Periyasamy ... Petitioner in W.P.Nos.24286 of 2010 Versus 1.The Assistant Commissioner, ( Land Reforms) Erode, 2.The Thasildar, Tiruppur. 3.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Tiruppur. ... Respondents in both the W.Ps. Writ Petitions filed under Article226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to issue patta in favour of the petitioners herein with based on their representation dated within a stipulated time. For Petitioners : Mr.A.Sivaji For Respondents : Mrs.Lita Srinivasan Government Advocate COMMON ORDER Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions are common, they have been heard together and disposed off by this common order. 2. The prayer in these Writ Petitions is for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent viz., the Assistant Commissioner, Land Reforms, Erode, to issue patta in favour of the petitioners herein based on their representations. 3. Mr.A.Sivaji, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the first respondent issued an order of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ assignment, assigning an extent of 93 cents of land situate in S.No.205/2A of Chettipalayam Village, Tiruppur Taluk, in the name of two persons, viz., Chinnappan and Ganesan. Since the original assignees have violated the conditions of assignment order, the first respondent by invoking his power under Rule 9 ( d) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms ( Disposal of surplus ) Rules, 1965, after due notice to the original assignees and also by following all the formalities and procedures, passed an order dated 17.05.1989, cancelling the assignment order granted in their favour. Subsequently, the first respondent issued assignment order in favour of the petitioners on 19.07.1989. 4. The learned counsel confined his arguments and made two submissions. Firstly, the original assignment made in favour of erstwhile assignees came to be cancelled and the said order of cancellation has also become final. Secondly, the subsequent assignments which have been made in favour of the petitioners on 19.07.1989, have also become final. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to get patta, as they have not violated any of the conditions, as mentioned in the assignment order. Further, as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the assignment order, both the petitioners have made entire payment to the respondent-Department. 5. Thus, when the petitioners have complied with all the terms and conditions, as mentioned in the assignment order by not alienating the property for about 23 years and also made full payment, the respondents are duty bound to issue patta in favour of the petitioners. With these submissions, the learned counsel prayed for allowing the writ petitions. 6. Opposing the said prayers, Mrs.Lita Srinivasan, the Learned Government Advocate submitted that since a criminal case is pending against the original assignees, viz., Chinnappan and Ganesan, and since the land situate in S.No.205/2A of Chettipalayam Village, Tiruppur Taluk, is standing in their name, it is not legally possible to issue patta in favour of the petitioners. This stand of the respondents finds no force for the reason that in view of violations made by the original assignees, assignments were cancelled and resultantly, petitioners were issued with assignments by the Government. 7. Be that as it may, when the assignment order dated 19.07.1989, issued in favour of the petitioners by the first respondent clearly goes to show that the petitioners have become successful assignees and when they have not violated any of the conditions and the fact that both the petitioners have subsequently made the entire payment, as mentioned in the assignment order and for one another reason that more than 23 years have gone by, I am of the considered view that the pendency of the criminal case https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ against the original assignees will not be an impediment for issuing patta in favour the petitioners, who are entitled to get the same. 8. Therefore, the first respondent is directed to consider the representations made by the petitioners and issue patta in their favour within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. In the result, the Writ Petitions are disposed off on the above said terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. Sd/ Asst. Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar sd To 1. The Assistant Commissioner, ( Land Reforms) Erode, 2. The Thahsildar, Tiruppur. 3. The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Tiruppur. 1 cc To Mr.A.Sivaji, Advocate, SR.26211 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.26623 W.P.No.24285 & 24286 of 2010 PUR (CO) RH (4.5.11) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/