Judgment :- Seeking Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order of the 2nd Respondent dated 19. 2004 bearing Rc.No.G1/13539/2001, Petitioners have filed this Writ Petition. 2. Brief facts which led to the filing of Writ Petition are as follows:- Land in S.No.120/2B measuring 5.00 acres in Nallathur village of Kallakurichi Taluk was assigned to one Ramasamy, son of Ayyan as per the Proceedings of Special Deputy Tahsildar, Kallakurichi in DKT 1522/1367 dated 110. 1959. Assigned land was sold by the assignee in favour of Dhanabackiam and Patta was transferred in her name in the year 1962. Dhanabackiam in turn sold the land in favour of one Kandasamy under registered sale deed dated 16.03.1966 and that further sale was made in favour of 1st Writ Petitioner-Thirumalai Gounder under registered sale deed dated 15. 1967. 5th Respondent Angamuthu and three others have filed a Petition before Revenue Divisional Officer (for short RDO), Villupuram on 08.01.1988 claiming right over the assigned land. After giving opportunity to both parties, RDO, Villupuram passed order in Proceedings No.A4/1791/88 dated 312. 1990 cancelling the assignment. 3. Aggrieved by the above order, 1st Writ Petitioner filed an appeal before the District Revenue Officer (DRO), South Arcot. DRO in his Proceedings R.Dis.(VI) 13547/91 dated 210. 1991 confirmed the orders of RDO. However, request of the 1st Writ Petitioner was considered on humanitarian ground as he had invested huge amount for reclamation of assigned land. RDO, Virudhachalam was directed that land may be assigned on collection of land cost considering the eligibility of the applicant. 4. Aggrieved by the order of DRO, 5th Respondent has filed Revision Petition before the 2nd Respondent/Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration on 05.08.1992. While the Revision was pending for disposal, Tahsildar, Kallakurichi in his order DKT No.58/1402 dated 19.04.1993 had assigned 20. 0 Hectares (3.00 acres) in favour of 1st Writ Petitioner on free of cost and 0.82.5 Hectares (2.00 acres) in favour of 2nd Writ Petitioner on collection of market value of Rs.8,134/-after deducting the reclamation charges from the land cost. 5. 2nd Respondent in his Proceedings No.R.Dis.(G) 45561/92 dated 112. 1995 has dismissed the Revision filed by the 5th Respondent. In the said order dated 112. 1995, 2nd Respondent has observed that there is no provision for transferring the assigned land to legal heirs and accordingly dismissed the Revision. .6. 5. 2nd Respondent in his Proceedings No.R.Dis.(G) 45561/92 dated 112. 1995 has dismissed the Revision filed by the 5th Respondent. In the said order dated 112. 1995, 2nd Respondent has observed that there is no provision for transferring the assigned land to legal heirs and accordingly dismissed the Revision. .6. Against the order of 2nd Respondent/Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, 5th Respondent filed a Petition before the Government. Government in their letter No.4624/F1/96 dated 23. 1996 observed that Petition cannot be treated as Revision Petition, but can only be treated as application for assignment of land and the Government had directed the Collector, Villupuram to consider the representation of the 5th Respondent in accordance with law. .7. Purchasers of the land/Writ Petitioners made representation to the 2nd Respondent on 09.07.1996 requesting to confirm the assignment made to them by the Tahsildar, Kallakurichi in DKT 58/1402 dated 14. 1993. On their representation, 2nd Respondent issued direction to the DRO, Villupuram in the letter No.G1/3143596 dated 22.07.1996 with the following observation:- ."The original assignment has been cancelled due to violation of condition and the subsequent assignment has not been cancelled by this office its hold good" 8. The Tahsildar, Kallakurichi in his K.Dis.A9/7321/93 dated 110. 1997 stated that the Writ Petitioners and the 5th Respondent can continue the cultivation on the lands assigned to them. Against that direction, 5th Respondent has again filed Review Petition before the 2nd Respondent. Making certain observations, 2nd Respondent in his Proceedings No.D.Dis.54561/97 dated 08.06.1999 remitted the matter to DRO for a decision at his level. 9. In the Proceedings in Rc.No.B6/40422/99 dated 22. 2001, DRO has set aside the assignment of land made by the Tahsildar, Kallakurichi in favour of the Writ Petitioners and ordered to resume the land as there is no irregularity found in the assignment order of Tahsildar and directed the Tahsildar to consider the request of 5th Respondent for assignment of land and the eligibility of Thirumalai Gounder and Periyasamy (Writ Petitioners) as per darkhast rules and take appropriate action. 10. Aggrieved by the order of DRO, Writ Petitioners have filed Petition before the 2nd Respondent. After referring to various earlier other proceedings, 2nd Respondent has passed the following order:- "This case was heard by me on 9. 2004. During the course of hearing, the counsel for the appellant presented and put forth his case. 10. Aggrieved by the order of DRO, Writ Petitioners have filed Petition before the 2nd Respondent. After referring to various earlier other proceedings, 2nd Respondent has passed the following order:- "This case was heard by me on 9. 2004. During the course of hearing, the counsel for the appellant presented and put forth his case. The counsel for the respondent was absent. I have gone through the grounds of appeal, counter statement filed on behalf of the respondent and other connected records. The District Officials and the Tahsildar should consider the case for assignment under darkhast rules taking into account, current enjoyment and its duration and other potential assignees. The District Revenue Officer, in his orders appealed against has already remanded the case to the Tahsildar, Kallakurichi to consider the case of the Revision petitioners and that of the Respondents herein with respect to their eligibility. Accordingly, I confirm the orders of the District Revenue Officer, Villupuram first read above. The stay granted by this office on 23. 2001 on orders of the District Revenue Officer is hereby vacated." 11. Heard the learned counsel on record. Learned counsel for the Writ Petitioners submitted that nearly two decades after purchase of property by the Writ Petitioners, 5th Respondent cannot challenge the same. Learned counsel for the Petitioners inter alia raised the following contentions:- "Petitioners being in possession of the lands for a long time and that they have invested huge amount in reclaiming the lands. "Property was passed on several hands and now they cannot challenge the same nearly after two decades. 12. Supporting the impugned order dated 16.09.2004, learned Government Advocate has submitted that parties were directed to appear before the Tahsildar to consider the matter afresh in the light of darkhast rules and the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. 13. Learned counsel for the 5th Respondent would also submit that 2nd Respondent has rightly directed the parties to appear before the Tahsildar, Kallakurichi and the impugned order does not suffer from infirmity warranting interference. 14. I have carefully examined the contentions of both sides. The matter has had a chequered career and the parties fighting for assignment of the land for two or three rounds of litigation. With a view to give quietus to the matter, 2nd Respondent by the impugned order has again remanded the matter back to the Tahsildar. 14. I have carefully examined the contentions of both sides. The matter has had a chequered career and the parties fighting for assignment of the land for two or three rounds of litigation. With a view to give quietus to the matter, 2nd Respondent by the impugned order has again remanded the matter back to the Tahsildar. As such there is no infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 15. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Pursuant to the direction of the 2nd Respondent in Rc.No.G1/13539/2001 dated 16.09.2004, both the Writ Petitioners and 5th Respondent are directed to appear before Tahsildar, Kallakurichi. Tahsildar, Kallakurichi shall send notice to both parties directing them to appear before him on a particular date of hearing. Tahsildar, Kallakurichi shall afford sufficient opportunity to both parties to put forth their case. Tahsildar, Kallakurichi shall consider and dispose the matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Of course earlier, petitioner could have obtained NET/SLET qualification. Point falling for consideration is Whether services of Petitioner is liable to be terminated as she does not possess mandatory qualification of NET/SLET as required. The next point falling for consideration is whether in the changed scenerio when U.G.C. has relaxed NET qualification that U.G. Teacher is to be granted relief taking note of the subsequent events.