Judgment : The Writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, V. Srinivasan, seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 211. 2003, passed in G.O. No. 575, Revenue (Land Reform 2 (2) Department), quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders for assignment of lands of an extent of Ac.1.16 and Ac.0.91 in S. Nos. 49/5 and 48/2 respectively in Keeramangalam Village, Lalgudi Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District in favour of the petitioner. 2. The lands of an extent of 10.09 acres in survey No.4/3, 48/2, 49/3, 49/5 and 50/3, Kanchipuram District, originally belonged to Sri Sankariammal Dharma Chatram represented by its executive trustees. While so, the petitioner’s father, as a cultivating tenant, was cultivating those lands by virtue of lease deeds executed from time to time in respect of the lands of an extent of 1.76 acres, 1.16 acres and 1.17 acres totally constituting 4.09 acres in survey Nos.4/3, 49/5 and 50/3 respectively. The petitioner’s sister, Lakshmi , also became a lessee in respect of remaining lands of an extent of 6 acres. Thereafter, the name of the petitioners as well as his sister were recorded as cultivating tenant in the tenancy after the coming into force of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Right Act. 1969 (Act 10 of 1969). Since the petitioner was the cultivating tenant of an extent of 2.07 acres, the Government notified an extent of 10.09 acres, which was owned by Swamimalai Srimathi Sankari Ammal as excess land under Section 18(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1961’). Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules, 1962’) provides for a right to a cultivating tenant to be in continuous possession of the land if he moves an application before the authorised officer under Form-B and the same is considered positively in favour of the cultivating tenant. Therefore, in view of Rule 23 of Rules, 1962, the petitioner, along with other cultivating tenants, namely, sub-lessces under him, preferred an application on 29. 1979, within the prescribed time limit and after enquiry on his application, the assignments were given by the 4th respondent, the Assistant Commissioner of Land Reforms. Therefore, in view of Rule 23 of Rules, 1962, the petitioner, along with other cultivating tenants, namely, sub-lessces under him, preferred an application on 29. 1979, within the prescribed time limit and after enquiry on his application, the assignments were given by the 4th respondent, the Assistant Commissioner of Land Reforms. Subsequently, an appeal was preferred before the 2nd respondent challenging the assignment given in favour of the petitioner. By order dated 3. 1987, the 2nd respondent set aside the order of assignment made in favour of the petitioner and directed fresh enquiry to be made. Aggrieved by the order passed by the 2nd respondent cancelling the assignment made in favour of the petitioner filed W.P. No. 2280 of 1988 on the file of this Court seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the authorities to issue orders of assignment after setting aside the order of the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, in view of constitution of Special Appellate Tribunal, the said writ petition was transferred and renumbered as TRP No. 407 of 1991 and, thereafter, on 29. 1994, the Special Appellate Tribunal, accepting the order of the 2nd respondent, dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner, but with an observation that the petitioner and others can make a claim of priority as cultivating tenant in respect of the assignments. 3. In the meanwhile, the 4th respondent initiated proceedings for assigning lands by conducting enquiries. In the process, the 4th respondent, by order dated 16. 1998, issued assignment of lands to authorised persons under Rule 8(4) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Lands) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules, 1965’). An extent of 82 cents out of 1.16 acres in survey No.49/5 was assigned to the petitioner. His claim, as cultivating tenant, in respect of the remaining 34 cents in survey No.49/5 and 91 cents in survey No.48/2 as against the claim of 2.07 acres of wet land was rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal in APDSL 17/98 before the 3rd respondent, the District Revenue Officer at Chennai. The 3rd respondent, by order dated 16. 1998, allowed the claim of the petitioner and ordered assignment in respect of the entire extent of 2.07 acres. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent, while exercising power under sub-clause (3) of Rule 11 of the Rules, 1965, issued a show cause notice dated 6. The 3rd respondent, by order dated 16. 1998, allowed the claim of the petitioner and ordered assignment in respect of the entire extent of 2.07 acres. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent, while exercising power under sub-clause (3) of Rule 11 of the Rules, 1965, issued a show cause notice dated 6. 1999 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the order of the 3rd respondent dated 16. 1998, should not be set aside after assigning reasons. Immediately, on receipt of the above said notice, the petitioner submitted his objections, but ignoring the objections, the 2nd respondent, by order dated 27. 1999, set aside the order of the 3rd respondent and upheld the order of the 4th respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred further revision before the 1st respondent under Rule (4) of the Rules, 1965. The 1st respondent Aggrieved, by order dated 211. 2003, in G.O. No. 575, confirmed the order of the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. The main thrust of argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner for challenging the impugned order is that the respondents 1 and 2 ought not to have applied G.O. No. 715, Revenue, dated 23. 1980, since the proceedings regarding assignment of surplus lands were initiated before issuance of G.O. No.715. The said Government Order amending Rule 5 of the above said Rules, 1965, had no retrospective effect and, therefore, it cannot deprive the persons, who are entitled to hold upto 5 standard acres. Since G.O. No. 715 will be applicable only to the surplus lands intended and taken possession on or after the date of amendment, namely, 23. 1980 and the said position has been made clear by this Court in a judgment Sambandam v. District Revenue Officer and Others 1988 (1) LW 620. Though the said judgment of this Court was brought to the notice of the 1st respondent, but the same has not been considered. Therefore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the respondents is against the judgment of this Court and on that basis prayed for allowing the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order. 5. Per contra, learned Addl. Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner with 9 others in proceeding No. MRIV/411/37-32 dated 16. 5. Per contra, learned Addl. Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner with 9 others in proceeding No. MRIV/411/37-32 dated 16. 1998, was assigned an extent of 0.82 acres of wet land by the Assistant Commissioner of Land Refrms, Trichy, after conducting fresh enquiry as ordered by the Land Commissioner, Chennai, in his proceedings dated 3. 1987, as against the original claim of 2.07 acres. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority and District Revenue Officer, Land Tribunal, Chennai, on the ground that he was cultivating the following lands in Keeramangalam Village for a very long time in SF No.49/5 measuring 1.16 acres and SF No.48/2 measuring 0.91 acres and on that basis prayed for assignment of the entire extent of 2.07 acres. But, the appellate authority, namely, the Land Tribunal held that the petitioner’s name was registered in the record of tenancy rights as a tenant and, therefore, his request for assignment of land was held to be genuine and, therefore, allowed his appeal. When the said order was examined by the Land Commissioner, it was taken up for suo motu revision by invoking the power vested under Rule 11(3)(b) of the Rules, 1965 for the reason that the order passed by the appellate authority/Land Tribunal dated 11. 1998 was not in accordance with the provisions contained under Rule 5(2) of the Rules, 1965. Therefore, the petitioner was issued with a show cause notice dated 6. 1999 calling upon him to submit his explanation as to why the judgment of the learned Tribunal should not be set aside for the reason that the petitioner was already in possession of an extent of 0.68 acres of wet land and as such the assigning authority had also assigned an extent of 0.82 acres of SF No.49/5 reflecting the total extent of 1.50 acres of wet land as per Rule 5(2) of the Rules, 1965. It was further contended that the learned Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the petitioner, failed to take into account the provisions contained under Rule 5(2) of the Rules, 1965 and the petitioner also failed to assign any reason, the Land Commissioner, by order dated 27. 1989, set aside the order passed by the appellate authority, namely, the learned Tribunal and upheld the order of assignment issued by the Assistant Commissioner passed in its order dated 16. 1989, set aside the order passed by the appellate authority, namely, the learned Tribunal and upheld the order of assignment issued by the Assistant Commissioner passed in its order dated 16. 1998. Aggrieved by the above said order of the Land Commissioner, the petitioner’s further appeal before the Government under Rule 11(4) was also rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ of an extent of 34 cents in SF No. 49/5. The said prayer cannot be considered since he is already in possession of land of an extent of 0.68 acres of wet land in SF No. 5/6A of Keeramangalam Village The petitioner is eligible only for assignment of 1.50 acres of wet land as per the provisions contained in Rule 5(2) and on that basis prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. The question that arises for consideration in the present writ petition is what is the effect of Rule 5 of Rules, 1965 as amended by G.O.No. 715, Revenue, dated 23. 1980. 8. The respondents, in their impugned order, while exercising suo motu power, has answered the question stating that though the petitioner had submitted his application on 29. 1979, under Rule 4 of the Rules, 1965, the respondents considered the said application and granted assignment on 30.7.1980 on the basis of the subsequent amendment dated 23. 1980, in G.O. No. 715, Revenue, it is relevant to have a look at Rule 5(1) and (2) of the Rules, 1965, which is extracted as under: “5. Eligibility for assignment of surplus land and the maximum extent to be assigned: 1. The following persons and societies shall be eligible for assignment of surplus land and shall be entitled to preference, in the order given below. .(i) A person who is completely dispossessed of his holding by virtue of the provisions of the Act. .(ii) A person whose extent of holding is reduced below three standard acres held by him partly as cultivating tenant and partly as owner or wholly as cultivating tenant, by virtue of the provisions of the Act. (iii) A person who is, or who has been a member of the Armed Forces. .(ii) A person whose extent of holding is reduced below three standard acres held by him partly as cultivating tenant and partly as owner or wholly as cultivating tenant, by virtue of the provisions of the Act. (iii) A person who is, or who has been a member of the Armed Forces. (iv) A Co-operative farming society, the members of which are landless agricultural labourers or landless persons or a combination of both: Provided that the extent of land assigned to the society, together with the land, if any, already held by the society, does not exceed the ceiling area of such society. .(v) A landless agricultural labourer, who is likely to engage himself in direct cultivation. .(vi) A landless person, who is likely to engage himself in direct cultivation. (vii) A cultivating tenant who is holding land which is less than five standard acres in extent.” After the amendment, the said Rule 5(1) reads as follows: “Rule 5(1) The following persons and societies shall be eligible for assignment of surplus land and shall be entitled to preference in the order given below: (i) A person who has been cultivating the land as on the date of the commencement of the Act and who is completely dispossessed of the land which is declared as surplus as a result of the provisions of the Act. Provided that the person should not have surrendered the lands subsequent to the date of the commencement of the Act. .(ii) Omitted by G.O. Ms. No. 1358; Revenue, dated 26. 1979. (iii) A person whose extent of holding is reduced below three acres of dry land or one and a half acres of wet land held by him partly as cultivating tenant and partly as owner or wholly as cultivating tenant by virtue of the provisions of the Act. .(iv) A landless agricultural labourer belonging to Scheduled Castle or Scheduled Tribe who contributes his own physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of the land. (v) A person who is or who has been a member of the Armed Forced including persons who had served in the Indian National Army or the Ex-Assam Rifles Personnel or any para-military force and members of Armed Forces, who retired or were disbanded before the 21. (v) A person who is or who has been a member of the Armed Forced including persons who had served in the Indian National Army or the Ex-Assam Rifles Personnel or any para-military force and members of Armed Forces, who retired or were disbanded before the 21. 1950 and dependants of the persons of the abovementioned categories, killed in action namely, wife, widowed mother, minor sons and minor daughters. The servicemen not killed in action but disabled and alive, can get surplus lands in their own name. (v-A)………Omitted) .(vi) A landless agricultural labourer other than the landless agricultural labourer referred to in clause .(iv) who contributes his own physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of the land. (vii) A cultivating tenant who is holding land which is less than three acres of dry land or one and half acres of wet land in extent. (viii) and (ix) Omitted.” 8. As per the old rule, which stood before the amendment, the eligibility of assignment of surplus lands and the maximum extent to be assigned in respect of cultivating tenant has been clearly given as 3 acres of dry land and 1 ½ acres of wet land. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in Sambandam v. District Revenue Officer and Others (supra), wherein it has been held that only the rule that existed on the date of the applications made by the petitioner that should be applied and not the rule as it should be applied and not the rule as it stood amended as on the date on which the application were disposed of. .9. This Court, while dealing with similar contention, in the above said judgment, has held that the application seeking assignment of land, preferred prior to the amendment of the rule, to be disposed of only basis of the rule as it stood before the amendment. On the basis of the above said ratio land down by this court, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made a prayer to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order. .Per contra, the respondents contended that the petitioner has given his statement on 7. On the basis of the above said ratio land down by this court, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made a prayer to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order. .Per contra, the respondents contended that the petitioner has given his statement on 7. 1996 requesting for assignment of land of an extent of 0.86 acres in SF No.48/2 of Keeramangalam Village, Lalgudi Taluk and Another land in SF.No.495/5 and 48/2 to an extent of 1.16 acres and 0.34 acres respectively. When the application was made, the petitioner was already in possession and enjoyment of 0.68 acres of wet land and 0.68 acres in SF No.516A of Keeramangalam Village were in possession of his wife. Therefore, the request of the petitioner that he has no other land other that his claim for assignment was not correct. Moreover, his application is also against the provisions contained in Rule 5(2) of the Rules, 1965. .10. Though the above said arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents is attractive, but in view of the ratio laid down by this Court in Sambandam v. District Revenue Officer and Others (supra), wherein this Court, after analysis of a catena of judgments of various Courts, has categorically held that the application for assignment preferred prior to the amendment of the Rule to be disposed of only on the basis of the rule as it stood before the amendment, as all laws which affect the substantive rights generally operate prospectively and there is a presumption against their retrospectively if they affect vested rights and obligation unless the legislative intent is clear and compulsive. In absence of any showing by the respondents to the effect that the judgment in Sambandam v. District Revenue Officer and Others (supra), having been unsettled by an appellate Court, or that it is shown that the legislative intent was such as to give retrospectivity, as per the settled legal position, this Court is of the considered view that the judgment in Sambandam v. District Revenue Officer and Others (supra) squarely covers the case of the petitioner herein. .In view of the above said legal position, following the ratio laid down in Sambandam v. District Revenue Officer and Others (supra), I have no hesitation in holding that the orders passed by the 1st and 2nd respondents are not sustainable in law and they are liable to be set aside. 11. .In view of the above said legal position, following the ratio laid down in Sambandam v. District Revenue Officer and Others (supra), I have no hesitation in holding that the orders passed by the 1st and 2nd respondents are not sustainable in law and they are liable to be set aside. 11. In the result, the impugned orders passed by the 1st and 2nd respondents are set aside and the writ petition is accordingly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.