Judgment :- Challenge in this Writ Petition is the proceedings of the Second Respondent dated 13.03.2001 confirming the cancellation of Assignment in favour of Petitioners Father – Venkateseshadri. 2. Factual background of the case are as follows:- Land measuring 0.01.04 sq.mt classified as Natham in S.No.243/3 at Tharaikudi was assigned to Petitioners Father – Venkateseshadri by Tahsildar, Kamudhi in the proceedings dated 212. 1997. The beneficiary did not construct the house in the site assigned to him within the stipulated period of 12 months. After the demise of the beneficiary, his son viz., the Petitioner sold the assigned property to the Village Maravar Sangam for a sum of Rs.12,960/- on 12.05.2000 without obtaining permission of the Government. For violations of the conditions of assignment, by the Impugned Proceedings dated 09.08.2000, the Third Respondent has cancelled the Assignment given to Venkateseshadri. Against that order, the Petitioner filed an Appeal before the D.R.O, Ramanathapuram – the Second Respondent. By the Impugned Proceedings dated 13.03.2001, the D.R.O has confirmed the order of R.D.O cancelling the assignment granted to Venkateseshadri, which is challenged in this Writ Petition. 3. Referring to the factual aspects and violation of assignment conditions, the Respondents have filed Counter Affidavit stating that the assignment was cancelled only after affording opportunity and in observance of procedural formalities. 4. The very assignment in favour of the Petitioners Father – Venkateseshadri is challenged. According to the Petitioner, the assignment is a fabricated one. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the site in S.No.244/3 of Tharaikudi was never assigned to Venkateseshadri. The stand of the Petitioner is that the said site is ancestral property of the family, which was the subject matter of Partition in the Partition Deed dated 03.09.1917. Learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently contended that the Petitioners Father has neither applied for assignment nor accepted the assignment at any point of time. The contention of the Petitioner is that the document of assignment has been fabricated mainly to deprive of the ancestral property to make assignment to other villagers. 5. Learned Government Advocate has submitted that Venkateseshadri was assigned the site in S.No.244/3 along with other villagers and the contention that the assignment is a fabricated one is wrong. The contention of the Petitioner is that the document of assignment has been fabricated mainly to deprive of the ancestral property to make assignment to other villagers. 5. Learned Government Advocate has submitted that Venkateseshadri was assigned the site in S.No.244/3 along with other villagers and the contention that the assignment is a fabricated one is wrong. Learned Government Advocate has further submitted that since there is violation of the conditions of the assignment by not putting up construction, after observing the procedural formalities, the R.D.O has rightly cancelled the assignment. 6. Heard learned counsel for Respondents 4 to 7. 7. Having regard to serious allegations of fabrication of documents of assignment, the Court has called for the entire records. The documents are eloquent enough evidencing assignment in favour of the Petitioners Father – Venkateseshadri in 1997. An extent of 0.01.04 sq.mt in S.No.244/3 at Tharaikudi Village was assigned to the Petitioners Father – Venkateseshadri in H.S.D.C.732/1407 dated 212. 1997. As seen from the copy of the Assignment, the Assignment is duly signed by Tahsildar, Kamudhi. On the relevant date, the assignment was not only in favour of the Petitioners Father, but also in favour of five other individual persons viz., Muthirulayee, Kayambu, Irulandi, Katturajan and Bhoopathy. In performance of such official function like granting of assignment, the Court would start with the presumption that the official acts by the revenue official has been duly and regularly performed. When allegations of fabrication of assignment is made, the burden is heavy upon the Petitioner, who alleges fabrication of the assignment. 8. The contention raised by the Petitioner is that the site in S.No.244/3 is the family ancestral property and assignment is fabricated to deprive the Petitioners family of their property. The Petitioner mainly relies upon the Family Partition Deed dated 03.09.1917. That Partition Deed was produced before the R.D.O and D.R.O and the authorities have considered the Partition Deed and concurrently held that the site in S.No.244/3 is not the Petitioners family property. I have also gone through the document. The stated boundaries in the Partition Deed do not seem to tally with the boundaries of the assigned site. 9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has contended that Venkateseshadri has stopped signing and had been affixing his thumb impression from 1996 and that the signature of Venkateseshadri found in the file was forged by some third persons. The stated boundaries in the Partition Deed do not seem to tally with the boundaries of the assigned site. 9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has contended that Venkateseshadri has stopped signing and had been affixing his thumb impression from 1996 and that the signature of Venkateseshadri found in the file was forged by some third persons. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to Patta Passbook of Venkateseshadri. I have carefully perused the entire file. As noted earlier, the assignment had been made in the name of Venkateseshadri. Why should the officials create such bogus documents of assignment in 1997 anticipating any sale in 2000? It is illogical to contend that the assignment is fabricated. 10. The cancellation of assignment is traceable to the conditions of assignment and the violations. As per the conditions of assignment, the house has to be constructed within a period of 12 months from the date of assignment i.e., 212. 1997. There is restriction of alienation of property by way of Sale/Settlement or Mortgage within a period of 10 years of assignment (Clause 9). Clause 14 of the conditions of the assignment categorically lays down that in case of any violation of conditions of assignment, the assignment could be cancelled and the site could be taken over by the Government. On more than one aspect, the conditions were violated. After the demise of his Father, the Petitioner has sold the property to one Ponnusamy and others by the Sale Deed dated 12.05.2000 for a sum of Rs.12,960/-. In view of the violation of the conditions of the assignment, the assignment was rightly cancelled by the Second Respondent by order dated 09.08.2000. 11. On behalf of the Petitioner, it was contended that after having passed the order on 09.08.2000, the R.D.O called upon the Petitioner to produce the Title Deeds to establish the ancestral nature of the properties in the proceedings dated 110. 2000. By perusal of the Typed Set of Papers, it is seen that Notice dated 110. 2000 was sent on the basis of the Petition preferred by the Purchasers – Ponnusamy and Singapuli and others. It is seen that copy of the said Notice has not been marked to the Petitioner. In any event, it cannot be said that the order was passed on 09.08.2000 even before hearing. 2000 was sent on the basis of the Petition preferred by the Purchasers – Ponnusamy and Singapuli and others. It is seen that copy of the said Notice has not been marked to the Petitioner. In any event, it cannot be said that the order was passed on 09.08.2000 even before hearing. The issuance of Notice and affording sufficient opportunities to the Petitioner and observance of procedural formalities is amply evident from the file. 12. It is pertinent to note that the Petitioner is working as Village Administrative Officer. Regarding assignment and sale to Maravar Sangam, charges have been framed against the Petitioner. In the Departmental Enquiry, as many as four charges have been framed. By the proceedings dated 010. 2000, the Enquiry Officer has found that all charges proved. 13. The contention that the property is a family property and the assignment is fabricated is not substantiated. The grievance of the Petitioner on violation of principles of natural justice also is not acceptable. After affording opportunity and in observance of the procedural formalities only the order of assignment has been cancelled. 14. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected W.M.P.No.10070 of 2001 is also dismissed.