Judgment : V. Ramasubramanian, J. 1. A land of an extent of about 15 acres and 87 cents in Survey No.329/14-21 was classified way back in the year 1979 as Harijan residential colony. Out of the said land, an extent of 0.10.5 hectares was assigned to one K.Rajammal as a free house site patta. It was in the year 1975. 2. In violation of the terms and conditions of the grant of free house site patta, K.Rajammal sold the property to two persons by name Prathabachandran and Lakshmanan Nair under two different sale deeds dated 13.12.1978 and 11.06.1979. Lakshmanan Nair sold the portion purchased by him to the father of Prathabachandran. Both father and son in turn sold the property to one J.S.Kumar on 08.10.1999 and the said J.S. Kumar sold the property on 06.02.2002 in favour of the one Pushkaran. 3. In the meantime, a group of persons namely, R.Vasantha and 10 others were issued with pattas by the Tahsildar on 06.08.2003 in respect of the land in S.No.329/14-29. But all those allottees joined together and filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.9952 of 2005 on the file of this Court contending that the lands allotted to them were actually in S.No.329/14-21 and that there was a mistake in quoting the survey number. They also contended that the aforesaid Pushkaran who had bought the property from those who traced title to K.Rajammal filed a suit in O.S.No.175 of 2003 and also filed a petition in W.P.No.36770 of 2003. But he could not get any orders and the said Pushkaran was evicted on 29.06.2005. Therefore, it was contended by R.Vasantha and others who are allottees that they are entitled to the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to correct the patta by mentioning the Survey Number as 329/14-21 instead of S.No.329/14-29. The said writ petition in W.P(MD)No.9952 of 2005 was disposed of by an order dated 14.12.2007 by a learned Judge directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider the request of the writ petitioners. At the same time, the learned Judge gave liberty to Pushkaran to move the Civil Court for obtaining orders. 4. In pursuance of the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.9952 of 2005, the revenue authorities, corrected the patta issued to R.Vasantha and others on 15.07.2008. At the same time, the learned Judge gave liberty to Pushkaran to move the Civil Court for obtaining orders. 4. In pursuance of the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.9952 of 2005, the revenue authorities, corrected the patta issued to R.Vasantha and others on 15.07.2008. Based upon the corrected patta, R.Vasantha and others filed a Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.9333 of 2008 to provide police protection for putting up a house in Survey No.329/14-21. This writ petition was disposed of on 22.10.2008 directing the authorities to consider request. 5. However, the said order dated 22.10.2008 passed in W.P(MD)No.9333 of 2008 was recalled by this Court, by an order dated 07.11.2008, at the instance of the Pushkaran. Thereafter, it was clarified that if any party had any grievance, they should approach the Civil Court. 6. In the meantime, Pushkaran had filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.6689 of 2008, challenging the order dated 15.07.2008 passed by the Tahsildar correcting the patta in favour of the R.Vasantha and others. 7. At that stage, one N.Venu, claiming to be a landless poor harijan filed a writ petition in W.P (MD)No.673 of 2009 seeking the issue of Writ of Mandamus to direct the District Collector to enquire into the matter as to how patta was issued in respect of Survey No.329/14-21, which was earlier classified as "Harijan Kudiyiruppu". This writ petition was disposed of on 28.01.2009 with a direction to the District Collector to consider the representation. 8. Based on the orders dated 28.01.2009, passed in W.P(MD)No.673 of 2009, the District Revenue Officer, conducted an enquiry and found that the allotment in favour of R.Vasantha and others were obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. After the District Revenue Officer reached the said he, finding by his order dated 17.04.2009 cancelled the patta granted in favour of R.Vasantha. Challenging the said order dated 17.04.2009, R.Vasantha came up with a writ petition in W.P(D)No.3592 of 2009. 9. By a common order dated 27.08.2009, both the writ petitions in W.P(MD)Nos.6689 of 2008 and 3552 of 2009 were disposed of, with certain directions. Challenging the said order dated 17.04.2009, R.Vasantha came up with a writ petition in W.P(D)No.3592 of 2009. 9. By a common order dated 27.08.2009, both the writ petitions in W.P(MD)Nos.6689 of 2008 and 3552 of 2009 were disposed of, with certain directions. The directions with which the writ petitions were disposed of are as follows :- (i) That the suit in O.S.No.140 of 2009 that was filed by the allottees on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai should be transferred to the Sub Court, Kuzhithurai where O.S.No.175 of 2003 was pending and both of them could be tried and disposed of together. (ii) Till the suits are disposed of, no party should create any encumbrance and the order correcting the patta should be kept in abeyance. 10. As against the said common order, dated 27.08.2009, passed in W.P(MD)Nos.6689 of 2008 and 3592 of 2009, the third party namely, N.Venu who has sought an allotment as a landless harijan has filed one writ appeal in W.A.(MD)No.555 of 2008. Similarly, Puskaran who was the writ petitioner in W.P(MD)No.6689 of 2008 has come with another writ appeal against the very same common order in W.A.(MD)No.528 of 2009. 11. During the pendency of the above two writ appeals, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram, issued a notice to all the allottees of land on 06.04.2013 directing them not to put up any construction till the conclusion of an enquiry undertaken for the cancellation of house site patta. Challenging this order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, one of the allottees by name Dilly has come up with a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.5865 of 2013. 12. Simultaneously, the allottees namely, R.Vasantha and others filed yet another writ petition in W.P(MD)No.9241 of 2013 seeking the issue of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the police authorities to give protection to them for the construction of their houses in their patta land in S.No.329/14-21. The said writ petition was ordered by a learned Judge at the admission stage itself granting police protection to enable the allottees to put up construction. This was n the strength of an interim stay granted in W.P(MD)No.5865 of 2013, to the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer not to put up construction. As against this order of the learned Judge, a third party has come up with an application for review in Review Application (MD)No.30 of 2013. 13. This was n the strength of an interim stay granted in W.P(MD)No.5865 of 2013, to the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer not to put up construction. As against this order of the learned Judge, a third party has come up with an application for review in Review Application (MD)No.30 of 2013. 13. In view of the fact that there is so much litigation between the parties in respect of a property which was originally intended to benefit the persons belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and in view of the fact that all the parties to this litigation are actually playing hide and seek with the Court, each filing independent cases without reference either to the previous litigation or to the other parties and hoodwinking the Court, we directed even the writ petitions which should normally go before the single Judge and the Review Application also to be tagged along with the writ appeals. 14. We have heard Mr. T.Arul, learned counsel for the appellant in W.A(MD)No.555 of 2009 and for Review applicant in Rew.Appl(MD)No.30 of 2013, Mr. T. Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel for the appellant in W.A(MD)No.528 of 2009, Mr. M. Thirunavukarasu, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.5865 of 2013 and respondents 4 to 14 in W.A(MD)No.528 of 2009, Mr. G.R. Swaminathan, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 11 in Rew.Appl(MD)No.30 of 2013, Mr. A.K. Baskarapandian, learned Special Government Pleader for the State, Mr. K.P. Narayanakumar, learned counsel for the fifth respondent in W.P.(MD)No.5865 of 2013 and Mr. P.Athimoolapandian, learned counsel for the 15th respondent in Rew.Appl(MD)No.30 of 2013. Writ Appeals: 15. As pointed out above, both the writ appeals arise out of a common order passed by a learned single Judge in two writ petitions namely in W.P(MD)Nos.6689 of 2008 and 3592 of 2009. 16. By the common order passed in these writ petitions, the learned Judge kept two orders of the revenue authorities, one dated 15.07.2008 and another dated 17.04.2009 in abeyance. By the first order, dated 15.07.2008, the allottees R.Vasantha and 10 others secured a correction of the survey number in the patta from R.S.No.329/14-29 to 329/14-21. By the second order dated, 17.04.2009 the Revenue Divisional Officer cancelled the patta granted in favour of the allottess namely, R.Vasantha and others. That had been challenged by Puskaran representing the temple, as he had purchased the property from the original scheduled caste allottee K.Rajammal. By the second order dated, 17.04.2009 the Revenue Divisional Officer cancelled the patta granted in favour of the allottess namely, R.Vasantha and others. That had been challenged by Puskaran representing the temple, as he had purchased the property from the original scheduled caste allottee K.Rajammal. Therefore, she had come up with the writ petition in W.P(MD)No.3592 of 2009. 17. In view of the two civil suits pending on the file of two different Courts, the learned Judge by his common order dated 27.08.2009 directed the trial Court to dispose of both the suits together and directed the parties to abide by the decision rendered by the Civil Court. Till then, the learned Judge directed both the parties not to create any encumbrance and also granted interim suspension of the orders impugned in the writ petitions. 18. The consequence of the common order of the learned Judge was that the correction of the survey number in the patta stood suspended till the disposal of the suits. Similarly, the cancellation of patta granted in favour of Vasantha and others got suspended. 19. Eventually, by a judgment dated 23.09.2010, the suit filed by Puskaran in O.S.No.175 of 2003 got dismissed on the ground that he had purchased the land in violation of the terms and conditions of free house site patta. The other suit in O.S.No.22 of 2010 (transferred from the Principal District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai) which had been filed by R.Vasantha and others was withdrawn and hence, dismissed as withdrawn. 20. Therefore, in essence, the common order of the learned Judge which is under appeal in both the writ appeals, has worked itself out. The correction of the survey number in the patta, effected on 15.07.2008 has been nullified by the withdrawal of the suit filed by R.Vasantha and others. But it appears that R.Vasantha and others have filed a fresh suit in O.S.No.195 of 2013, but the same was dismissed on an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. Therefore, today, R.Vasantha and 10 others do not own the property insurvey number 329/14-21. Once it is clear that they do not own the said property, the cancellation of patta ordered on 17.04.2009 has become perfectly justified and valid. Once it is clear that they do not own the said property, the cancellation of patta ordered on 17.04.2009 has become perfectly justified and valid. Therefore, if the writ petitions had now been taken up for hearing (assuming that they had not been disposed of by the order impugned in these writ appeals) the order dated 15.07.2008, correcting the survey number in the patta granted to R.Vasantha and others, would have been set aside. Consequently, the order of cancellation of patta dated 17.04.2009 would have been upheld. This is actually a consequence, that flows out of the judgment of the learned Judge and provided for in his judgment. Therefore, on its own reasonings, the order of the learned Judge does not call for any interference. But by virtue of the subsequent developments, the order of the learned Judge requires clarification. 21. In Manchegowda and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others, (1984) 3 SCC 301 , the Supreme Court held that any person who acquires the land granted to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, by way of transfer from the original grantees in breach of conditions relating to prohibition, must necessarily be presumed to be aware of the prohibition. Such a purchaser, it was pointed out by the Supreme Court, could not be considered to be a bona fide purchaser for value. The Supreme Court went to the extent of pointing out that such transferee acquires to his knowledge only a voidable title to the granted land. 22. In Lingappa Pochanna Appelwar Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1985) 1 SCC 479 , the Supreme Court pointed out that under the scheme of the Constitution, the Scheduled Tribes as a class require special protection against exploitation. Therefore, whenever a law is enacted for the benefit and protection of their land, it should be construed as part of the concept of distributive justice. Such a law is intended and meant as an instrument for alleviating oppression, redressing bargaining imbalance, cancelling unfair advantages and generally overseeing and ensuring probity and fair dealing. 23. In K.Palaniappan alias K.Subramanian Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, (1992) 2 MLJ 561 , a Division Bench of this Court upheld Board Standing Orders, S.O.15 which prohibited alienation of a land assigned to a Harijan in favour of a non Harijan. This decision was followed by another Division Bench in V.G.P. Prem Nagar Vs. 23. In K.Palaniappan alias K.Subramanian Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, (1992) 2 MLJ 561 , a Division Bench of this Court upheld Board Standing Orders, S.O.15 which prohibited alienation of a land assigned to a Harijan in favour of a non Harijan. This decision was followed by another Division Bench in V.G.P. Prem Nagar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2010 (3) CTC 845 . 24. Therefore, the law is well settled that the lands originally assigned in favour of the members of the Scheduled Castes, cannot be alienated. Any such alienation is bad in law. By altering the entries in the pattas granted to persons who do not belong to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the lands already classified as Harijan Kudirippu, cannot be allotted to others. 25. Therefore, both the writ appeals are disposed of, modifying the order of the learned Judge dated 27.08.2009, on account of the subsequent developments, to the following effect: (i) The order of the Tahsildar, dated 15.07.2008 is set aside and the correction of the entry in the patta granted to R.Vasantha and others is cancelled. (ii) The order of the District Revenue Officer, dated 17.04.2009 directing the cancellation of patta in favour of the R.Vasantha and others is upheld. (iii) In other words, all the allottees such as Dilly, R.Vasantha and others have no right, title or interest over the property in R.S.No.329/14-21 and hence, the Government is directed to take back the possession of the land in R.S.No.324/14-21 by evicting all persons who are in possession thereof within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The police shall render necessary assistance to the revenue authorities to take actual physical possession in view of the fact that the land in question was originally classified as a Harijan Kudiruppu and it can neither be allotted to others nor be alienated by the allottees in favour of others. Writ Petition and Review Application: 26. The writ petition filed by the allottees challenges an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 06.04.2013 prohibiting them from putting up any construction. Since the writ petition was admitted and an interim stay of the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer was granted, the allottees came up with a subsequent writ petition in W.P9MD)No.9241 of 2013 and secured an order for police protection. Since the writ petition was admitted and an interim stay of the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer was granted, the allottees came up with a subsequent writ petition in W.P9MD)No.9241 of 2013 and secured an order for police protection. This order sought to be recalled in Rev.A.(MD)No.30 of 2013. 27. In view of the orders passed in the writ appeals, it is clear that the allottees namely R.Vasantha and others have lost their rights over the property. The cancellation of the allotment in their favour has now been upheld. Therefore, they cannot put up any construction and hence, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 06.04.2013 impugned in W.P.No.5865 of 2013 is upheld and the Writ Petition (MD)No.5865 of 2013 is dismissed. 28. Consequently, the order passed in W.P(MD)No.9241 of 2013 granting police protection to the allottees is liable to be recalled, as allottees do not have any right whatsoever over the property. Hence, the Review Petition is allowed and the order dated 11.06.2013 in W.P(MD) No.9241 of 2013 is recalled and the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.