ORDER : 1. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The 30th petitioner has filed this writ petition on behalf of him and the other petitioners and submitted that the petitioners are agricultural labourers and they do not own any agricultural land other than the land assigned to them by the second respondent in April 1990 and the house site in which they have put up houses. The petitioners has submitted that the second respondent acquired the agricultural land of 24.40 acres from the Respondents 5 and 6 under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act, (fixation of ceiling on land) 1961. He has further submitted that the second respondent announced that the land taken over from the respondents 5 and 6 would be distributed among the agricultural labourers and called for applications. The petitioners applied for land. It is stated that about 76 persons applied for land and that the second respondent after conducting an enquiry assigned land to about 61 persons including the petitioners. The petitioners got allotted different sizes of land for consideration of various amounts to be paid in installments by an order dated 14.10.1991 and the petitioners paid money towards initial payment and possession was handed over and Pattas were also issued to them. However, Sale Deeds were not executed in their favour. 2. The 30th petitioner has further submitted that when they went to the office of the third respondent to pay further installments, they were told that the fourth respondent and the father of the sixth respondent (since deceased) had filed a Writ Petition before this Court against the order of the second respondent assigning the excess land of 24.40 acres, taken over from them and assigned to the respondents and they could pay the remaining installments after the case was over. The petitioners had been growing Kattuvela (velikathan trees) trees for fire wood and for sale as firewood. He has further submitted that as usual this year also in the month of June they went to the fourth respondent to find out whether they could pay the balance and get the sale deed. The petitioners had been growing Kattuvela (velikathan trees) trees for fire wood and for sale as firewood. He has further submitted that as usual this year also in the month of June they went to the fourth respondent to find out whether they could pay the balance and get the sale deed. To their shock and surprise they were told that the Land Commissioner by the impugned order dated 27.02.1999 set aside the order of the second respondent dated 28.09.1997 and directed the second respondent to conduct fresh enquiry in accordance with relevant provisions of the Land Reforms Act and that he had sought for instruction from the second respondent as to receiving the payment from them. When they told him that they had no notice from the Land Commissioner and that they had not heard from him before passing the order dated 27.02.1999. The fourth respondent told them that he did not know anything about all those things and that fresh enquiry had been directed to be held by the second respondent and that fresh enquiry would be held at any time and that going by the order of the Land Commissioner, the lands might be returned to the Respondents 4 and 5. 3. However, the petitioners started cultivation as they had not been issued any order of cancellation of assignment. After they started cultivation the Respondents 5 and 6 tried to prevent them. Therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer (the third respondent herein) convened a peace meeting on 28.07.2011, in the said meeting the second respondent took part and stated that consequent on the order of the Land Commissioner dated 27.02.1999 the assignment orders became infructuous and it was informed to their counsel Mr.Raphael Raj, Kumbakonam on 09.08.2007. When the petitioners disputed his statement, the Revenue Divisional Officer (the third respondent) asked for proof from the second respondent and the second respondent after verifying the file said that there was no proof of sending the communication to the Advocate Mr.Raphael Raj. Then the Revenue Divisional Officer said that in the absence of proof of any communication to the assignees to the effect that the assignment had become infructuous, he could not prevent them from cultivating the lands. 4. Then the Revenue Divisional Officer said that in the absence of proof of any communication to the assignees to the effect that the assignment had become infructuous, he could not prevent them from cultivating the lands. 4. Thereafter, on advice one of the petitioners (the deponent of this affidavit) filed a writ petition No.19066 of 2011 challenging the order of the Land Commissioner dated 27.02.1999 and for direction to the respondents to execute the sale deed for him. The petitioners were told that when the said writ petition came up for admission on 17.08.2011 the learned Government Advocate raised an objection that the writ petition was not maintainable as there was delay in filing the writ petition and that it was given to the petitioner to file a writ petition seeking any relief other than the relief of granting the order of the Land Commissioner as it was only a direction to the second respondent to conduct a fresh enquiry. This Court was pleased to adjourn the hearing of the said writ petition for admission so as to enable to the petitioners therein consider filing of another writ petition. While so, the petitioners received the order dated 10.08.2011 from the second respondent through the Village menial on 24.08.2011, which stated that consequent on the order of the Land Commissioner dated 27.02.1999 the assignment proceedings have become ineffective and cancelled. One of the petitioners (the deponent of this affidavit) filed Writ Petition No.20580 of 2011 challenging the same. This Court was pleased to admit the writ petition and order statues quo. 5. The 30th petitioner has further submitted that as stated earlier even before passing the impugned order, the petitioners cultivated the land and raised paddy crops and the petitioners had harvested about 10 bags of paddy (40 kgs. bag) and sold it to the Tamil Nadu Civil Supply Corporation under the direct procurement scheme. Thereafter, the fist respondent orally directed the Civil Supply Authority not to disburse the amount and passed an order directing the Tahsildar not to permit the petitioners and others to harvest the remaining paddy crops on the ground that he had passed an order dated 05.08.2011 prohibiting the petitioners and the respondents and 4 others from entering the land. Thereafter, the fist respondent orally directed the Civil Supply Authority not to disburse the amount and passed an order directing the Tahsildar not to permit the petitioners and others to harvest the remaining paddy crops on the ground that he had passed an order dated 05.08.2011 prohibiting the petitioners and the respondents and 4 others from entering the land. The petitioners therefore filed a Miscellaneous Petition (M.P.No.3/2011) in W.P.No.20580 of 2011 praying for an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioners from harvesting the paddy crop raised in the land assigned to them, pending disposal of the writ petition and this Court by an order dated 09.11.2011 directed the Tahsildar to harvest the paddy and keep the paddy in his custody. 6. The 30th petitioner has further submitted that the petitioners state that 09.11.2011 when the M.P.No.3 of 2011 in W.P.No.20580 of 2011 was heard by this Court, the learned counsel for the respondents 5 and 6 therein produced typed set of papers containing order of the second respondent dated 28.07.2011 under which the second respondent arrived at the area of surplus land as 4.99 standard acres. The petitioners state that the writ petition No.19066 of 2011 challenging the order of the Land Commissioner, dated 27.02.1999 came up for hearing on 18.11.2011 before this Court and the learned counsel for the third respondent herein produced a copy of the order of the second respondent dated 28.11.2010 under which the first respondent has declared an extent of 4.996 standard acres as surplus it is contrary to the extent of acreage of surplus land found by his predecessor against the respondents 3 and 4. Based on the second respondent's order produced dated 28.07.2011, this Court closed the said writ petition with the liberty to the writ petitioner to challenge the said order of the second respondent dated 28.07.2011. Hence, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. 7. The third respondent has filed a counter statement on behalf of herself and the other respondents 1, 2 and 4 and submitted that the office of the second respondent has been disbanded and the post of the Joint Commissioner (Land Reforms), Mayiladuthurai has also been disbanded as per the orders of Government in G.O.Ms.No.34, Revenue, dated 14.01.2015. 7. The third respondent has filed a counter statement on behalf of herself and the other respondents 1, 2 and 4 and submitted that the office of the second respondent has been disbanded and the post of the Joint Commissioner (Land Reforms), Mayiladuthurai has also been disbanded as per the orders of Government in G.O.Ms.No.34, Revenue, dated 14.01.2015. The powers of the 'Authorized officer' under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 as amended and the 'Assigning Authority' under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965 have been conferred to the Sub-Collector / Revenue Divisional Officers in the Districts as per the notification published on 04.03.2015 and 05.03.2015. As the lands lie in the jurisdiction of Revenue Division of Thiruvarur, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvarur is to deal with the present case. 8. The points which are vital to the case are furnished below:- (i) The petitioner being the assignee of surplus lands has no locus standi to question the impugned order when the declaration of surplus itself was set aside by the appropriate statutory forums. (ii) The surplus land declared had been questioned by the landowner, Trust and the order of declaration was set aside by the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal in TRP.584/91 dated 05.03.1993 and the Land Commissioner in RP.78/97 dated 27.02.1999. (iii) When the original declaration of surplus was set aside by the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal and by the Land Commissioner, the assignment made subsequent to that declaration becomes infructuous and deemed to have been automatically set aside. (iv) The land will vest in the assignee, only if the land value has been paid in full or after the conditional period of 20 years is over whichever is later as per Rule 9(1)(iii)(a) of the Rules, 1965. The vesting of lands with the petitioner -assignee has not taken place. (v) Once the declaration has been set aside, no claim shall be enforceable in respect of such land against the Government or any person deriving rights from them; (vi) In the revised proceedings, the order of Authorised Officer is at preliminary stage of 9(2)(b) dated 28.07.2011 and surplus declaration has not reached finality; (vii) Only on notifying the lands in the notification under Section 18(1), the declaration will become final. (viii) Notices are being issued to interested parties only if they are purchasers / family members, where applicable, in the proceedings of declaration of surplus. The assignees are not entitled for any notice in the declaration proceedings. (ix) The selection of surplus land to be declared has not yet been completed. (x) Replies were sent to the petitioners, assignees about the orders of Land Commissioner and Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal and the cancellation of assignment and they have been duly acknowledged by them. But contrary to the truth, the petitioners are making wild allegations, incorrect statements and misleading the Court by stating that no proof of communication was received by them. (xi) The assignees were also informed by the second respondent that the case of the assignees will be considered, while initiating reassignment proceedings. 9. The facts (history) of the case is furnished as follows:- (i) Thiru.N.S.Kuppusamy Udayar of Narthangudi Village, Valangaiman Taluk had created the following trusts after 01.03.1972 through document Nos.320, 321, 322 registered at the Sub-Registrar's Office, Needamangalam on 05.04.1973 appointing himself and his two sons namely 1.Thiru.K.Singaravelu Udayar and 2.Thiru.K.Kalyana Sundara Udayar as trustees. The said documents were executed on 15.12.1972 and registered on 05.04.1973 (i.e.) after the date of commencement of the Tamil Nadu Land 12 Reforms [Fixation of Ceiling on Land] Act 1961 [Tamil Nadu Act 58/61] as amended by Act 37/72 in which, acquisition of lands on and after 01.03.1972, the date of commencement of the amendment Act 37/72 by the Public Trust is prohibited. The said Trust acquired lands to an extent of 24.40 ordinary acres equivalent to 19.966 standard acres of lands. Sl. No. Name of the Trust Name of the Trustee Document No. in which the Trust was created 1. Arunnachalathudayar Annachatram (Sri Abatesahayeswara Swami Thirukarthigai Mandagapadi Dharmam) N.S.Kuppusamy Udayar 320 dated 05.04.1973 2. Arunnachalathudayar Annachatram (Chidambaram Sri Natarajan Archanai Kattalai Dharmam) N.S.Kuppusamy Udayar 320 dated 05.04.1973 3. Arunnachalathudayar Annachatram (Sri Siddhi Vinayagar Koil Nithiyapadi Poojai, Neivethya Dharmam) K.Singaravelu Udayar 321 dated 05.04.1973 4. Arunnachalathudayar Annachatram (Brindavana Dwadesi Kattalai Dharmam) K.Singaravelu Udayar 321 dated 05.04.1973 5. Arunnachalathudayar Annachatram (Thanner Pandal Dharmam) K.Singaravelu Udayar 321 dated 05.04.1973 6. Arunnachalathudayar Annachatram (Thanner Pandal Dharmam) K.Singaravelu Udayar 321 dated 05.04.1973 7. Arunnachalathudayar Annachatram (Sri Siddhi Vinayagar Koil Nithiyapadi Poojai, Neivethya Dharmam) K.Singaravelu Udayar 321 dated 05.04.1973 4. Arunnachalathudayar Annachatram (Brindavana Dwadesi Kattalai Dharmam) K.Singaravelu Udayar 321 dated 05.04.1973 5. Arunnachalathudayar Annachatram (Thanner Pandal Dharmam) K.Singaravelu Udayar 321 dated 05.04.1973 6. Arunnachalathudayar Annachatram (Thanner Pandal Dharmam) K.Singaravelu Udayar 321 dated 05.04.1973 7. Arunnachalathudayar Annachatram (Dharmam Building Maintenance and Brahamana Kudumbasam Bakshnai Dharmam) K.Kalyana Sundara Udayar 322 dated 05.04.1973 (ii) As these trusts were created after 01.03.1972 and acquired lands in contravention of the provisions contained in Section 2(2) and 5(3-C) of the Act, after putting the parties on notice, orders were passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms) Mayiladuthurai in his MRI/15K/37-72/NNL/ dated 23.02.1990 transferring an extent of 24.40 ordinary acres equivalent to 19.966 standard acres of lands to the Government under Section 20-A of the Act, as a penalty for contravention of the provisions contained in Section 2(2) and 5(3-C) of the Act. (iii) Against the above order, Thiru.N.Kuppusamy Udayar filed a revision petition before the Land Commissioner, Chennai. The Revision Petition was dismissed by the Land Commissioner, Chennai in F1/R.P.69/90 (Land Reforms), dated 07.09.1990, as devoid of merits. (iv) Then, Thiru.N.S.Kuppusamy Udayar, filed writ petition in W.P.No.17341/1990 against the orders of Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Mayiladuthurai in MRI/15K/37-72/NNL dated 23.02.1990 and the orders of Land Commissioner, Chennai in F1/R.P.69/90 (Land Reforms), dated 07.09.1990. On the constitution of Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, the above said writ petition was transferred and numbered as TRP No.584/1991. The Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, in its order in TRP.No.584/91 (W.P.No.17341/1990) dated 05.03.1993 set aside the orders of the Authorized Officer and Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Mayiladuthurai and the Land Commissioner, Chennai and directed to initiate denovo proceedings in accordance with law with an observation that the Authorized Officer had not given any reasons supported by material evidence to warrant his findings that Section 20-A of the Act was attracted by the facts of the case except referring to Section 2(2), 5(3-C) and 20-A of the Act and that the Land Commissioner is founded on a new allegation that the trusts founded in the year 1875 and 1900 were not acted upon which was not brought out in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner. (v) Thereafter, after observing the usual formalities, order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Mayiladuthurai in MRI/15K/37-72/PPN/A2 dated 28.09.1997, again ordering for the transfer of an extent of 24.40 ordinary acres equivalent to 19.966 standard acres of land to Government with effect from the date of registration of document under Section 20-A of the Act. (vi) Against this order, Thiru.K.Singaravelu Udayar and Thiru.K.Kalyana Sundara Udayar have filed the revision petition in D1/R.P.78/97 (Land Reforms) under Section 82 of the Act before the Land Commissioner, Chennai. (vii) The Land Commissioner, Chennai-5 in the order in R.P.78/97 dated 27.02.1999 allowed the revision petition and set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Mayiladuthurai dated 28.09.1997 and remitted the matter to the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Mayiladuthurai for denovo proceedings taking into account the provisions contained under Section 5(ii)(d)(i) of the Act and as per other relevant provisions of the Land Ceiling Law, after observing that the existence of the trust even prior to the date of commencement of the Act 37/72 i.e. 01.03.1972 is held proved beyond reasonable doubt and that as regards the nature of the trust, the trust is a private family trust which existed prior to the date of commencement of the Amended Act 37/72 i.e. 01.03.1972 and therefore do not attract the provisions of Section 20-A read with Section 2(2) and 5(3-C) of the Act. (viii) As per the directions of the Land Commissioner, the Joint Commissioner, Land Reforms, Mayiladuthurai, after issue of notices and conduct of enquiry passed preliminary orders under Section 9(2)(b) of the Act, declaring an extent of 4.996 standard acres as excess in MRI/15K/37.72/PPN/A2, dated 28.07.2011 after allowing an extent of 15.000 standard acres towards ceiling area. (ix) Against this order passed under Section 9(2)(b) of the Act dated 28.07.2011, the assignees have filed the present writ petition. 10. The third respondent has further submitted that the writ petitioners have narrated the history of the case leading to the filing of the present writ petition. They are admitted to the extent that they are not contrary to the facts stated in the history of the case and all other contentions are hereby denied. The third respondent has further submitted that in pursuance of orders of the Land Commissioner, Chennai-5 in D1/R.P.78/97 dated 27.02.1999, notices were issued to the trustees 1.K.Singaravelu Udaiyar 2.K.Kalyanasundara Udayar for initiating denovo proceedings. The third respondent has further submitted that in pursuance of orders of the Land Commissioner, Chennai-5 in D1/R.P.78/97 dated 27.02.1999, notices were issued to the trustees 1.K.Singaravelu Udaiyar 2.K.Kalyanasundara Udayar for initiating denovo proceedings. This fact was also informed to Thiru.M.N.Rabel Raj, Advoate, Katcherry Road, Kumbakonam in Joint Commissioner (Land Reforms), Mayiladuthurai notice in MRIV/57/37.72/VLG dated 09.08.2007. This fact was also admitted by the assignees in their certified copy application dated 22.07.2008 which was certified by Thiru.M.S.Rabel Raj, Advocate, enclosing a copy of the said notice dated 09.08.2007. However, these proofs are available in the Joint Commissioner, Land Reforms, Mayiladuthurai records in MRI/57/37.72/Vol. I. The Joint Commissioner, Land Reforms, Mayiladuthurai in the Ref.No.MRIV/57/37.72/VLG dated 21.08.2008 again informed to Thiru.M.S.Rabel Raj, Advocate for the petitioners assignees with these facts by RPAD and it was acknowledged by him on 23.08.2008. The copy of relevant documents are placed in the typed set. The third respondent has further submitted that the petitioner is making false affidavit by stating that the Revenue Divisional Officer ordered that in the absence of proof of any communication to the assignees to that effect that the assignment becomes infructuous, he could not prevent them from cultivating the lands. The fact is that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvarur in his proc. M.C.59/97-A2 (Section 145 Cr.P.C.) dated 28.07.1998 after conducting an enquiry under section 145 Cr.P.C. has issued orders that till the finalization of proceedings under Land Reforms, the trustees and assignees should not enter in the disputed lands with an observation that the lands are surplus lands and though patta issued, possession of lands was not handed to the assignees. The Joint Commissioner (Land Reforms), Mayiladuthurai has passed orders in respect of the land holdings of land owner in MRI/15K/37-72/PPN/A2 dated 28.07.2011 under Section 9(2)(b) of the Act and declared an extent of 4.996 standard acres as surplus. Hence, the assignment made to the writ petitioner in MRIV/57/37-72/Valangaiman dated 30.04.1990 has become infructuous as surplus of 19.966 standard acres ceases to exist under Section 20-A. Therefore, this contention deserves no merit. 11. The third respondent has further submitted that the petitioner has filed W.P.No.19066 of 2011 challenging the order of the Land Commissioner, Chennai-5 in D1/R.P.78/97 dated 27.02.1999. This writ petition has been closed by this Court on 18.11.2011 with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order under Section 9(2)(b) dated 28.07.2011 before the appropriate forum. 11. The third respondent has further submitted that the petitioner has filed W.P.No.19066 of 2011 challenging the order of the Land Commissioner, Chennai-5 in D1/R.P.78/97 dated 27.02.1999. This writ petition has been closed by this Court on 18.11.2011 with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order under Section 9(2)(b) dated 28.07.2011 before the appropriate forum. According to the directions, the 30th petitioner along with others filed the present writ petition. The third respondent has further submitted that following the orders issued on 28.07.2011, the petitioner assignees were informed on 10.08.2011 that the assignment order has become infructuous and are cancelled. Against the above intimation, the 30th petitioner filed writ petition in W.P.No.20850 of 2011 before this Court challenging the intimation of the Joint Commissioner (Land Reforms), Mayiladuthurai dated 10.08.2011 to all assignees and it is pending disposal. The third respondent has further submitted that this Court in its order in MP.No.1 of 2011 in WP.No.20580 of 2011 dated 12.11.2011 has disposed the petition with directions to the Tahsildar to harvest the paddy cultivated by the petitioner and after harvest to sell the same at the earliest and keep the said amount in a separate account. The writ petitioners erroneously mentioned as MP.No.3 of 2011 in WP.No.20580 of 2011 and date of order wrongly as 09.11.2011. The above writ petition is pending disposal before this Court. 12. The third respondent has further submitted that the 30th petitioner in this case has also filed a writ petition in WP.No.19066 of 2011 against the order of the Land Commissioner dated 27.02.1999. This Court in its judgment in WP.No.19066 of 2011 dated 18.11.2011 has closed the writ petition with an observation that in view of the orders of the Joint Commissioner (Land Reforms), Mayiladuthurai dated 28.07.2011, the relief sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition has become infructuous, however liberty may be granted to the petitioner to challenge the above said proceedings. According to the directions, the 30th petitioner along with others filed the present writ petition. The third respondent has further submitted that the order of the second respondent is fair, reasonable and passed in accordance with law. According to the directions, the 30th petitioner along with others filed the present writ petition. The third respondent has further submitted that the order of the second respondent is fair, reasonable and passed in accordance with law. The petitioners assignees were informed through their counsel Thiru.M.S.Rebel Raj on 09.08.2007 and 21.08.2008 that the assignment has become infructuous and that the question of handing over possession of lands to the assignees does not arise or any rights as assignee cease to exist as declaration of surplus was set aside. Further, after passing of orders by the second respondent dated 28.07.2011 on completion of denovo proceedings, the petitioners assignees were informed about the cancellation of assignment through an intimation dated 10.08.2011. As the impugned order was passed under the statutory provisions contained under law, the petitioner was not denied any due opportunity for hearing or denied equality before the law and therefore, there is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. 13. The third respondent has further submitted that the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal in its order in TRP No.584/1991 (W.P.No.17341/1990) dated 05.03.1993 has set aside the order of the declaration of surplus made under Section 20-A of the Act dated 23.02.1990. When the order of declaration was set aside, the assignment made with reference to the order has become infructuous and lost its validity and assignment order automatically ceased to exist. When the declaration itself was set aside by the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal, the petitioners cannot claim any right over the land. Further, the question of issuing the notices to the assignees would arise only if the validity of the assignment order has been challenged. But since in this case, the declaration itself was set aside and the petitioners assignees, by virtue of the declaration only got their assignment, the petitioners are not entitled for notice. The assignee comes into picture only after declaration. If there is no surplus, no question of assignee. Therefore, this contention deserves no merit. It is further submitted that the order of the second respondent is legal and passed in accordance with the provisions contained under the Act. 14. The third respondent has further submitted that the allegation made by the petitioners is baseless and devoid of merit. If there is no surplus, no question of assignee. Therefore, this contention deserves no merit. It is further submitted that the order of the second respondent is legal and passed in accordance with the provisions contained under the Act. 14. The third respondent has further submitted that the allegation made by the petitioners is baseless and devoid of merit. The second respondent passed the impugned order with reference to the directions of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal in TRP.584/91 (WP.No.17341/1990) dated 05.03.1993 and also as per the directions of the Land Commissioner in RP.78/97 dated 27.02.1999. The second respondent has clearly mentioned the above said orders in the intimation sent to the assignees on 10.08.2011. Further, the petitioners assignees were informed through their counsel Thiru.M.S.Rebel Raj on 09.08.2007 and 21.08.2008 that the assignment has become infructuous and that the question of handing over possession of lands to the assignees does not arise. Further, after passing of orders by the second respondent dated 28.07.2011 on completion of denovo proceedings, the petitioners assignees were informed about the cancellation of assignment through an intimation dated 10.08.2011. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvarur in his proc. M.C.59/97-A2 (Section 145 Cr.P.C.) dated 28.07.1998 only after conducting an enquiry under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and after perusal of records has issued orders that till the finalization of proceedings under Land Reforms, the trustees and assignees should not enter in the disputed lands with an observation that the lands are surplus lands and though patta was issued, possession of lands was not handed to the assignees. The order of the second respondent dated 28.07.2011 was passed consequent to the orders of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal read with the orders of the Land Commissioner and therefore there is no malafide and biased action by the second respondent as alleged by the petitioners. 15. The third respondent has further submitted that the second respondent, as per the directions of the Land Commissioner in RP.78/97 dated 27.02.1999, after issuing notices to the interested parties and after conducting enquiry and perusing the documents filed by the fifth respondent passed the order holding that the trust is a private family trust which existed prior to the commencement of the Act 37/72 i.e. 01.03.1972 and therefore do not attract Section 20-A of the Act read with Section 2(2) and 5(3-C) of the Act. Thereafter, the second respondent passed the impugned order. It is submitted that following the orders issued under Section 20-A of the Act dated 23.02.1990, transferring an extent of 24.40 acres to the Government, necessary assignment proceedings were initiated under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965 and the above extent of land was assigned to 61 persons on 30.04.1990. When action was being taken to handover possession to the assignees, the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal, in the case filed by the Trustees has ordered status quo on 10.11.1991 in its order in MP.No.219/91 in TRP.584/91 dated 11.11.1991. Subsequently, the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal in its order in TRP.584/91 dated 05.03.1993 has allowed the case and set aside the orders of the Authorized Officer dated 23.02.1990 and the order of the Land Commissioner dated 07.09.1990. In view of the above orders, the assignment made to the petitioners / assignees has become infructuous and hence possession was not handed over to the petitioners / assignees. The above was also informed to the counsel for the petitioner Thiru.M.S.Rapheal Raj. Therefore the contention of the petitioners that they are in possession and the enjoyment of the property during the year 1999 to 2010 is baseless and devoid of merit. 16. The third respondent has further submitted that against the declaration of surplus made in the order of the second respondent dated 23.02.1990 and also against the order of the Land Commissioner dated 07.09.1990, the landowner trustee filed Special Revision Petition before the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal and the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal in its order in MP.No.219 of 1991 in TRP.No.584/1991 ordered status quo and subsequently in the order dated 05.03.1993 set aside the order of declaration dated 23.02.1990 and the order of the Land Commissioner dated 07.09.1990. Consequent on the setting aside of the order of declaration, the assignment ceases to exist and therefore possession of lands was not handed over to the assignees and hence the petitioners assignees derived no rights thereafter. This contention therefore fails. Hence, it was prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 17. Consequent on the setting aside of the order of declaration, the assignment ceases to exist and therefore possession of lands was not handed over to the assignees and hence the petitioners assignees derived no rights thereafter. This contention therefore fails. Hence, it was prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 17. The learned counsel Mr.S.Ayyadurai, appearing for the petitioners submits that the second respondent had acquired the surplus lands from the fifth and sixth respondents after initiating land acquisition proceedings under the Land Reforms Act and acquired the agricultural lands to an extent of 24.40 acres as surplus lands. The same was allotted to the petitioners herein and others in total 61 persons, who are beneficiaries. they also paid an initial advance land amount towards consideration. The possession also has been handed over to the beneficiaries on various portions. Subsequently, patta had been issued to the petitioners. As such, all the beneficiaries / petitioners are entitled to receive sale deeds from the respondents. 18. The learned Additional Government Pleader Mr.M.S.Ramesh, appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 submits that the impugned order declaring that the fifth and sixth respondents are possessing surplus lands was set aside by the appellate authority i.e. Tamilnadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal. As such, the declaration has become infructuous. Therefore, the assignee / petitioner has no locus standi to claim rights over the said land. Further, the assignee had not remitted entire land cost. Further, the second respondent's order has not reached finality and therefore the same cannot be executed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner, without knowing the entire acquisition proceedings and proceeding of appellate authority, has filed the above writ petition with unclear statements. Actually, the father of the fifth and sixth respondents had registered a private trust on the file of Sub-Registrar's office, Needamangalam, on 05.04.1973. He has appointed his sons, i.e. fifth and sixth respondents as trustees. Therefore, the property belongs to the private trust and this fact had not been disclosed to the second respondent at the time of enquiry./ After knowing the factual position, the second respondent's impugned order was cancelled, on merits, which is sustainable under law since the trust was existing even before acquiring the said land. Hence, the very competent counsel entreats the Court to dismiss the above writ petition. 19. Hence, the very competent counsel entreats the Court to dismiss the above writ petition. 19. The highly competent counsel Mr.J.Nandagopal, appearing for the fifth respondent submits that the fifth and sixth respondents proved their case that the property belongs to the family trust and the same has been proved before the appellate authority. The assignment order had been issued to the petitioner and other beneficiaries as per the second respondent's order dated 30.04.1990, but the family trust has been registered in the year 1972 itself. Before the relevant period, the family trust was in existence and therefore the impugned order had been issued and the assignment order was cancelled in a proper manner. On the basis of impugned order, the petitioner's right will not be affected. Besides, the earlier assignment order had not been completed / executed. 20. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the very competent counsels on all sides and on perusing the typed set of papers, this Court is of the view that the second respondent had assigned surplus lands to the petitioner and others in his proceedings dated 30.04.1990. The same was challenged before the appellate authority, wherein the factual position of the case that the family trust had been registered on 01.03.1972 and the same has been in existence and functioning, was proved. Therefore, the property belongs to the private family trust. Hence, the appellate authority had set aside the second respondent's order and the same has been communicated to the petitioner. As such, the impugned order is an appropriate one and can be operated upon further. Therefore, the above writ petition does not generate sufficient force to allow it. 21. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.