Judgment :- The writ petition has been filed for issue of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the orders passed by the first respondent in his proceedings No. Rc.G1/19547/92 dated 11.4.1997 and quash the same. 2. Heard both sides. 3. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that an house site was originally allotted to the petitioner in the year 1970 on the ground that the petitioner was not owning any land or any house site and hence a land-less poor with certain conditions. One of the conditions is that the petitioner must construct a house on the assigned land within a period of one year. In the said condition, the manner in which the building has to be constructed is prescribed and that the said construction should not affect the pathway to others. While so, it was found that the petitioner has not constructed any building in the said site but at the same time he put up a compound wall obstructing the public from having access to the Mariamman Temple. 4. Further, it was found that on the date of the assignment, the petitioner was not a land-less poor. He had 5 acres of dry land and 2 acres of wet land besides three houses in S. No. 43/1. Therefore, notice for cancellation of assignment was issued and an enquiry was conducted. After enquiry, the impugned order has been passed cancelling the assignment against which, the present writ petition has been filed to quash the same. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the assignment was made in the year 1970 and the cancellation order was passed after 27 years which is not permissible in law. 6. Admittedly, the land was assigned free of cost by the Government with certain conditions. When any of the condition is not complied with, the Government is entitled to take back the land. In the scheme of assignment, the important condition for assignment of land is that the person to whom the land was assigned should not own any landed property. It is seen from the impugned order that in the enquiry held on 8.2.1993, the petitioner herein has admitted that on the date of assignment, he had 5 acres of dry land, 2 acres of wet land besides 3 houses in S. No. 43/1. It is seen from the impugned order that in the enquiry held on 8.2.1993, the petitioner herein has admitted that on the date of assignment, he had 5 acres of dry land, 2 acres of wet land besides 3 houses in S. No. 43/1. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled for the assignment on the date of which, the land was assigned to him. Since the assignment was contrary to the scheme, it was cancelled. Hence, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. 7. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to contend that since it is more than 27 years after assignment, it cannot be cancelled. There is no such time limit prescribed in the scheme of assignment. Further, it is only free allotment on the ground that the petitioner was a land-less poor. The authorities were misled by the false statement given by the petitioner on the date of allotment. But for that false statement the allotment would not have been made by the Government. The allotment was made due to a mistake of fact. An allotment made due to a mistake of fact will not confer any right on the allottee. Hence, cancellation of such an allotment is only a rectification of the mistake. Hence, it is legal and valid. 8. The action taken by the authorities in this case is commendable. The beneficial scheme framed and implemented by the State to alleviate the sufferings of the land-less poor cannot be cornered by the affluent persons. Only by rectifying such defects, such acts can be prevented in the years to come. Hence, this writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed as such. No costs.