Judgment :- 1. This appeal has been preferred against the award dated 25.10.2004 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Sivakasi in L.A.O.P.No.150 of 2004, a reference made under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 2. An extent of 0.65.5 Hectares of land comprised in S.No.1020/2 in Subbayanaickenpatti Village was acquired by the Government using its eminent domain for a public purpose, namely to form an irrigation canal under the Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Programme (RLEGP). The land acquisition Officer fixed the compensation at Rs.10,920/-. The said land had been registered in the revenue records in the name of State Boodhan Board in patta No.995. The said land had been assigned to one Velu Karaiyalar S/o. Subbian Karayalar under a land distribution deed dated 14.08.1964, marked as Ex.C.1. 3. The assignment made in favour of Velu Karayalar was subject to the following six conditions:- 1.The assignee shall not have the right to sell or in any way alienate the property; 2.The assigned land should not be leased out; 3.The assignee shall make payment of the land tax, cess and other taxes payable to the Government from the date of assignment; 4.The assignee shall also make payment of the amount decided by Tamilnadu Bhoodan Board from time to time for the said land; 5.In case it is brought to notice that the assignment was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation or in any way unjustifiably, then the assignment is liable to be cancelled and 6. In case, the assignee fails to cultivate the land consequently for three years, then the Bhoodan Board shall have the right to transfer the land to any other landless person. 4. Theoriginal assignee Velu Karaiyalar was also known as Velu Thevar and is no more. At the time of acquisition of the said land, the first respondent herein Vellayammal W/o. Velu Thevar made a claim that the compensation for the acquisition of the said land should be paid to her in its entirety. Similarly the Special Officer, State Bhoodan Board, Madurai also made a claim that the Bhoodan Board was the owner of the property and hence, the entire compensation should be paid to Bhoodan Board. Similarly the Special Officer, State Bhoodan Board, Madurai also made a claim that the Bhoodan Board was the owner of the property and hence, the entire compensation should be paid to Bhoodan Board. Since there arose a dispute as to the apportionment of the compensation and a dispute as to the person to whom the compensation is payable, the land acquisition officer has made a reference to the Sub Court, Sivakasi under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and deposited the entire amount of compensation awarded under Section 11 of the said Act. 5. The learned Subordinate Judge took the reference on his file as L.A.O.P. No.150 of 2004. The appellant and the first respondent herein, the rival claimants, entered appearance and put in their claim statements. The appellant and the first respondent herein claimed the entire amount of compensation to itself/herself to the exclusion of the other. Based on the said pleadings, the learned Subordinate Judge conducted trial, in which both the parties did not lead any oral evidence. By consent, the Land Distribution Deed executed in favour of the husband of the first respondent herein/husband of the second claimant dated 14.08.1964, was marked as Ex.C.1 and the same happened to be the sole document produced in the case. The learned Subordinate Judge, after hearing the submissions made on either side and upon considering the pleadings and the above said document, came to the conclusion that the first respondent herein/second claimant was entitled to get the entire amount of compensation and the appellant herein was not entitled to claim any compensation. 6. Aggrieved by and challenging the same, the appellant herein/first claimant, namely the Special Officer, State Bhoodan Board, Madurai has come forward with the present appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 7. Thepoint that arise for consideration in this appeal is: “Whether the appellant or the first respondent is entitled to claim compensation awarded by the land acquisition officer in respect of the acquired land?” 8. The respondents having not chosen to contest the matter by engaging the counsel, this Court heard the submissions of Mr.D.Gandhiraj, learned Government Advocate for the appellant/1st claimant and considered the documents available on record. 9. Admittedly, the acquired land was one of the lands distributed through Tamilnadu Bhoodan Board to the landless agriculturists for the purpose of cultivation. The respondents having not chosen to contest the matter by engaging the counsel, this Court heard the submissions of Mr.D.Gandhiraj, learned Government Advocate for the appellant/1st claimant and considered the documents available on record. 9. Admittedly, the acquired land was one of the lands distributed through Tamilnadu Bhoodan Board to the landless agriculturists for the purpose of cultivation. The land was assigned under Ex.C.1 to the husband of the first respondent herein/husband of the second claimant. Since the assessment was made subject to certain conditions imposing restrictions on the right of alienation and also a condition that possession of the assigned land would be resumed and the land would be reassigned to another person, if the same would left uncultivated consecutively for three years, the appellant/1st claimant has taken a stand that the acquired land had not been transferred to the assignee; that the said Bhoodan Board continued to be the owner of the land and that hence, the entire amount of compensation should be paid to the State Bhoodan Board. 10. Per contra, the 1st respondent herein/1st claimant contended that though the assignment was accepted with certain conditions, the transfer was full and the ownership got transferred to her husband Velu Thevar under Ex.C.1 Land Distribution Deed; that not only the assignee, but also his legal heirs were entitled to protect their possession and enjoyment of the land so long as the conditions were not violated and that hence, the entire compensation as the sole legal heir of Velu Thevar should be paid to her. 11. The dispute concerned in this case revolves around the interpretation of Ex.C.1. Whether the assignee under Ex.C.1 deed became the owner of the assigned land or a right to cultivation alone was given, is the main question to be decided. According to the appellant, though the land was assigned to Velu Karaiyalar @ Velu Thevar, the husband of the first respondent herein, the same was not a transfer of title; that even after such assignment the title continued to vest with Bhoodan Board and that hence, only the Bhoodan Board is entitle to get the entire amount of compensation. This Court is not in a position to accept the above said contention of the learned Government Advocate representing the appellant. 12. Of course, it is true that the revenue records stand in the name of Boodhan Board. This Court is not in a position to accept the above said contention of the learned Government Advocate representing the appellant. 12. Of course, it is true that the revenue records stand in the name of Boodhan Board. But it is an admitted case that the land under question was assigned to Velu Thevar under Ex.C.1 Land Distribution Deed. It is not the case of the appellant that the assignment was obtained by fraud or by misrepresentation and hence, liable to be cancelled. It is also not the case of the appellant that any act in violation of the conditions of the assessment was committed by the assignee so as to give raise to a right to the Bhoodan Board to resume possession and reassign the land to another landless agriculturist. It is an admitted position that so long as the conditions are not violated the assignees possession will be secured and even after the demise of the assignee his legal heirs shall be entitled to hold the property, which shows that the property right conveyed under Ex.C.1 is inheritable. Therefore, this Court is not in a position to accept the contention of the appellant that the title of the property continued to be vested with the appellant and the appellant was not divested of the title by virtue of executing Ex.C.1 Land Distribution Deed. 13. The Land Distribution Deed under Ex.C.1 can be equated to assignment of land by Government to a landless person or under special category. In case of such assignment, the conditions prohibiting/restricting alienation and conditions regarding utility of the lands can be imposed. But such conditions are imposed only for the benefit of the assignee. A similar question arose before a Full Bench (Larger Bench) of Andhra Pradesh High Court consisting of seven Honourable Judges. The judgment of the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Land Acquisition Officer-cum-R.D.O., Chevella Division, Hyderabad and others v. Mekala Pandu and others (LB) has been reported in 2004(3) CTC 19 . A similar question arose before a Full Bench (Larger Bench) of Andhra Pradesh High Court consisting of seven Honourable Judges. The judgment of the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Land Acquisition Officer-cum-R.D.O., Chevella Division, Hyderabad and others v. Mekala Pandu and others (LB) has been reported in 2004(3) CTC 19 . After referring to various decisions of the Honble Supreme Court as well as other High Courts, the Full Bench (Larger Bench) has expressed the view that the restriction on the assignee of Government land to alienate the land assigned to him is not intended to curtail the ownership right of the assignee in assigned land and such restrictions are being put in the interest of the assignee himself based on sound public policy to meet current needs of the community. It has also observed that public policy does not remain static in any given society; that it varies from generation to generation and even in the same generation and that the restriction imposed on the assignee is not intended to curtail ownership rights of assignee in the assigned land. 14. A clause was found in the assignment order, in the case before the said Larger Bench, to the effect that no compensation would be payable to the assignee in case the land would be needed by the State for a public purpose at a later point of time. The said clause called “no compensation clause” was declared to be invalid and ineffective. The entire content of the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court would go to show that such assignment conveys a complete transfer of ownership to the assignee, of course, subject to certain conditions for the benefit of the assignee himself. The said judgment has been referred to and relied on by the learned Subordinate Judge, Sivakasi to arrive at a conclusion that the first respondent herein/second claimant was the owner of the acquired land and hence, she was entitled to get the entire compensation. This Court does not find any defect or infirmity in the above said finding of the Court below warranting interference. 15. One More aspect is worth-mentioning for arriving at the above said conclusion is Bhoodan Movement is not a profit making movement. It was started with the noble intention of distributing the lands donated by philanthrophists to the deserving landless poor agriculturists. 15. One More aspect is worth-mentioning for arriving at the above said conclusion is Bhoodan Movement is not a profit making movement. It was started with the noble intention of distributing the lands donated by philanthrophists to the deserving landless poor agriculturists. It is not intended to be a body acquiring land for itself and lease it to the landless either free of cost or on nominal payment of rent. Those who want to donate lands to landless poor route it through the Bhoodan Movement and the Bhoodan Board is not intended to possess property and it is intended to regulate the donation of lands. As such the contention of the appellant that even after the distribution of the land under Ex.C.1-land distribution deed, it continued to remain the owner of the land cannot be sustained. The Court below has arrived at a correct conclusion that the appellant is not entitled to the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and on the other hand it is the first respondent herein/second claimant who is entitled to receive the entire compensation. There is no defect or infirmity in the same and the same deserves to be confirmed and the appeal suit is liable to be dismissed. 16. In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed and the award passed by the Subordinate Judge, Sivakasi in L.A.O.P.No.150 of 2004 is confirmed. Since the respondents having not contested the appeal, there shall be no order as to costs.