Judgment : 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition against the impugned order of the first respondent dated 4. 1997 confirming the order of the second respondent, rejecting their application for cutting the trees in S.F.Nos.252/1 and 252/2 at Mannavanur village, Kodaikanal Taluk. 2. The admitted facts are that the land was assigned to one Chelliah and Savarimuthu in the year 1972. The Special Tahsildar (Assignment), Kodaikanal issued patta to them. One of the conditions imposed under the assignment is that the assignees should not alienate the property to any third party within a period of ten years. The petitioner herein purchased the property under the registered sale deed dated 11. 1988. After the purchase, the petitioner had spent some amount for the development of the lands. For further development of the lands and also for replantation of the old trees, the petitioner submitted an application to the second respondent-the District Collector seeking permission to cut the matured trees. 3. By his proceedings dated 27. 1990, the second respondent rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that the assignees Chelliah and Savarimuthu sold the lands to the petitioner in contravention of the conditions of assignment. .4. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent herein, who had also rejected said appeal in and by his proceedings G.O.Ms.No.401, Environment and Forests (Fr.V) Department, dated 16. 1991. The said proceedings of the first respondent was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.No.18212 of 1992. Along with the said writ petition, the petitioner has also filed another writ petition W.P.No.18211 of 1992 challenging the validity of G.O.Ms.No.2485, Revenue, dated 11. 1979 whereby sub paragraph (3) of paragraph 12 to Clause (i) of the Board Standing Order 15 was amended imposing a condition that the assignees may alienate the lands after ten years only, and after obtaining the permission of the Tahsildar or the Revenue Divisional Officer. 5. This Court heard both the said writ petitions and disposed of by a common order dated 13. 1994, wherein this Court had set aside the order of the first respondent dated 16. 1991 and allowed the writ petition W.P.No.18212 of 1992 and remitted the matter back to the appellate authority, the first respondent herein, with a direction to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and thereafter, pass orders afresh. 1994, wherein this Court had set aside the order of the first respondent dated 16. 1991 and allowed the writ petition W.P.No.18212 of 1992 and remitted the matter back to the appellate authority, the first respondent herein, with a direction to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and thereafter, pass orders afresh. So far as W.P.No.18211 of 1992 is concerned, the same was dismissed, as the question raised in that writ petition need not be decided, as it is wholly unnecessary. After the remand by this Court, the impugned order dated 4. 1997 was passed by the first respondent rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner for the same reasons given in G.O.Ms.No.401, Environment and Forests Department, dated 16. 1991. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 6. Mr.S.Gopalratnam, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is vitiated on the ground of non application of mind, since the first respondent has merely dismissed the appeal for the reasons stated in G.O.Ms.No.401, dated 16. 1991, which was set aside by this Court in W.P.No.18212 of 1992. He also contended that when this Court has directed the first respondent to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, there is nothing in the impugned proceedings to show that the representation made by the petitioner during the personal hearing was taken into consideration. Further, G.O.Ms.No.2485, Revenue, dated 11. 1979 cannot be made applicable with retrospective effect and it can only be prospective and as such, the same has no relevance to the assignments made prior to the date of the Government Order. So far as the present lands are concerned, the same were assigned in the year 1972 and the petitioner purchased the same in the year 1986 and the only condition under the assignment is that the assignee shall not alienate the property for ten years. The authorities totally failed to consider this aspect and as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 7. Even though no counter has been filed, Mr.Titus Jesudoss, learned Special Government Pleader for Forests vehemently contended that the question involved is with regard to the validity of the title of the petitioner. The petitioner had given a written representation dated 24. 1994 before the third respondent stating that they purchased the land after a lapse of 16 years from the date of assignment. The petitioner had given a written representation dated 24. 1994 before the third respondent stating that they purchased the land after a lapse of 16 years from the date of assignment. The petitioner had improved the lands and the sale deed had been referred under Sec.47-A of the Stamps Act to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kodaikanal, who had accepted the valuation of the lands. As the pattas were transferred in the name of the petitioner and the petitioner is paying the land revenue, their title cannot be disputed. Barring this, nothing has been referred to in the said representation. .8. The petitioner having been given an opportunity of personal hearing to put forth their objections, and when the petitioner has made the objections, which were already over-ruled by the first respondent, there is no need for the first respondent to elaborately discuss the objections raised by the petitioner and deal with the same. In G.O.Ms.No.401, dated 16. 1991, it has been clearly mentioned that the purchase by the petitioner is in contravention of the conditions imposed in Order 15(1) of the Board Standing Order and hence, there is no need for the first respondent to repeat the same in the impugned order. Hence, if the impugned order as well as G.O.Ms.No.401 is taken together, that would clarify the matter and it cannot be said that the impugned proceedings is vitiated on the ground of non application of mind. Hence, there is no error apparent on the face of the record attracting the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Honourable Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. 9. I have carefully considered the contentions of both the counsel. It may be pertinent to note that even though the petitioner has filed W.P.No.18211 of 1993 challenging the vires of the Government Order G.O.Ms.No.2485, dated 11. 1979 the same was dismissed as unnecessary, no such relief has been sought for in the present writ petition or no separate writ petition has been filed challenging the said Government Order. Hence, G.O.Ms.No.2485, dated 11. 1979 has to be taken as valid. 10. Coming to the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the first contention is that the only condition imposed under the assignment is that the land shall not b alienated by the assignee for ten years. Hence, G.O.Ms.No.2485, dated 11. 1979 has to be taken as valid. 10. Coming to the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the first contention is that the only condition imposed under the assignment is that the land shall not b alienated by the assignee for ten years. Now that the petitioner had purchased the land beyond the prescribed period of ten years, the title of the petitioner cannot be challenged and G.O.Ms.No.2485, dated 11. 1979 would not affect the right of the assignee to alienate the property, since the condition imposed thereon would be applicable prospectively. 11. There is no dispute that the petitioner has purchased the land under the sale deed in the year 1986, when G.O.Ms.No.2485, dated 11. 1979 had been given effect to and the Board Standing Order 15 had been amended. The Board Standing Orders are the regulations governing the assignment of the lands, apart from several other factors. Even though in the original deed of assignment, no condition has been imposed, it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Government has got power to impose any restriction with regard to the alienation of the assigned lands. When the Government felt the need for imposing such restrictions of alienations by the assignees, it has to be taken not of that the Government is interested to avoid or prohibit the alienations for gain, especially when the assignments have been made to the poor for their livelihood. 12. When the assignments have been made for the poor for their livelihood, one cannot expect the assignee to alienate the property and spend the sale consideration derived therefrom and thereby losing their livelihood. Further, when the Boards Standing Orders are amended by way of Government Orders, that would come into force from the date of the Government Order. Here, the Government Order G.O.Ms.No.2485 is dated 11. 1979 whereunder the following restrictions have been introduced: “The assigned lands may be alienated after the period of ten years, but subject to the condition that in the event of the assignee wishing to dispose of the land after the above period, he should get prior permission of whether the Tahsildar or the Revenue Divisional Officer, who should give permission only, if the sale is to one of the categories eligible for assignment of Government waste lands for cultivation purposes.” 13. When the above said Government Order came into force on 11. 1979, within seven years from the date of assignment in favour of the original assignees-the vendors of the petitioner herein, naturally, they ought to have got the permission from the revenue authorities. Admittedly, the assignees-the vendors of the petitioner did not obtain any permission from the specified authorities under the said Government Order. 14. When once the Government intends to avoid the sale by the assignees and imposes restrictions by way of amendment to the Board Standing Orders, then, the conditions imposed in the assignment order or the assignment deed are subject to the subsequent orders passed by the Government. This is because, when an order has been passed in the public interest, no individual, who is affected by the said order can be given a personal opportunity of hearing or notice before ever such orders are being passed. The Government Orders, especially the executive and administrative orders in the public interest will have to supercede the conditions imposed against the individuals. Hence, it goes without saying that the restrictions imposed with regard to the alienation under the Government Order G.O.Ms.No.2485, dated 11. 1979 will be applicable to all the alienations, which are to be made subsequent to the date of the said Government Order dated 11. 1979 and thereafter, the other conditions with regard to the alienations imposed at the earlier point of time will be subject to this Government Order. Hence, there is no doubt that the power of alienation of the assignees is governed by this Government Order G.O.Ms.No.2485, dated 11. 1979 and hence, the alienees ought to have got permission from the revenue authorities before ever they want to alienate the properties, after the period of ten years specified in the original deed of assignment. Consequently, the alienation in favour of the petitioner cannot be said to be valid. 15. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order is vitiated on the ground of non application of mind, especially when this Court has remanded the matter to the first respondent on the earlier occasion with a direction directing him to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and dispose of the representation on merits. It may be pertinent to note that in the order passed in the said writ petitions dated 13. It may be pertinent to note that in the order passed in the said writ petitions dated 13. 1994, this Court has held that as per Sec.6 of the Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) Act, 1955, the petitioner is entitled for an opportunity of being heard in the appeal. Since the opportunity of personal hearing was not given by the first respondent to the petitioner herein, before ever their appeal was disposed of, the said order in G.O.Ms.No.401, Environment and Forests, dated 16. 1991 was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the first respondent with a direction to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Now, it is not the case of the petitioner that they were not heard. So, the opportunity of personal hearing, as directed by this Court, was given to the petitioner. Under the impugned order, the first respondent has rejected the appeal stating that a detailed scrutiny of various factors relating to the appeal was taken into consideration and the appeal was rejected on the same reasons as already indicated in paragraph 4 of G.O.Ms.No.401, Environment and Forests Department, dated 16. 1991. 16. In my opinion, instead of repeating the reasons given in the earlier Government Order G.O.Ms.No.401, dated 16. 1991, in short, the first respondent has merely referred the reasons given therein to reject the claim of the petitioner. In G.O.Ms.No.401 in paragraph 3, it is clearly stated that the sale of the assignments to the petitioner herein has been made without obtaining prior permission of the authorities, which is in violation of the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.2485, Revenue, dated 11. 1979. When once the alienation is in contravention of the conditions of alienation or the restrictions imposed in law, then, in such cases, the purchaser will not derive any valid title, as those alienations are totally void in the eye of law. Hence, in pargagraph 4 in G.O.Ms.No.401, dated 16. 1991. it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner has no ownership and title to the land in question and as such, they have no locus standi to file the application for cutting the trees. This is because, when once the conditions of assignment are violated, the Government has got power of resumption of the land. 1991. it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner has no ownership and title to the land in question and as such, they have no locus standi to file the application for cutting the trees. This is because, when once the conditions of assignment are violated, the Government has got power of resumption of the land. By virtue of the unlawful alienations, the assignees lost their title and by virtue of the illegal alienations, whereunder no title passes through, the alienees will not get any title and they cannot be the owners. 17. In such circumstances, there is nothing wrong on the part of the first respondent in rejecting the appeal mentioning the reasons already given in G.O.Ms.No.401, dated 16. 1991. At any rate, this cannot be said to be a non-application of mind. 18. Inthe earlier writ petition W.P.No.18212 of 1992, this Court, as pointed out already, has set aside G.O.Ms.No.401 not on merits, but on the technical ground that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of personal hearing. This would not mean that the concerned authority, after giving a personal hearing cannot come to the same conclusion. When the first respondent was justified in the reasons given in G.O.Ms.No.401, dated 16. 1991, there is nothing wrong on his part to refer those reasons in the impugned proceedings also for the rejection of the appeal filed by the petitioner. 19. For the reasons stated above, there is no merit in this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the above W.M.P. is also dismissed.