JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner is a Company engaged in granite quarrying and connected activities. It is stated that the Company owns about 15 Acres of land, which were covered by 15 Pattayams issued to the original assignees of the land. The quarrying activities are currently confined to an extent of 3.65 Acres of land, which is covered by two Pattayams, which were issued to the original assignees, namely: Pattayams bearing No. LA(P)625/MUM and LA(P)632/MUM. In the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to protests by persons in the locality, a stop memo was issued to the petitioner at the instance of the District Collector, which prevented the petitioner from carrying on quarrying activities in the said land. The proceedings initiated by the stop memo, culminated in Ext.P1 order dated 01.10.2016, whereby the District Collector, after perusing Ext.P2 report of the Deputy Director (Survey) dated 14.07.2016, wherein the said Surveyor had indicated that all the lands falling in Sy.No. 364 of Mulayam Village had been assigned in two lots to various persons and that there was no Puramboku land left in the said survey number, found that there was material to suggest that no Pattayam had been issued bearing Nos. LA(P)625/MUM and LA(P)632/MUM. The relevant statutory authorities entrusted with the task of regulating the quarrying operations were therefore, directed to take consequential action based on a finding that the said Pattayams had never been issued by the revenue department and further, a direction was given to the Tahsildar to take steps to cancel the aforesaid Pattayams after an enquiry in the matter. The petitioner impugned Ext.P1 order before this Court through WP(C) No.32611 of 2016, which was disposed by this Court by Ext.P3 judgment dated 21.11.2016, clarifying that the directions in Ext.P1, which obliged the Tahsildar to consider the matter, could not be seen as accompanied by any direction by the District Collector to render any particular finding on the various allegations raised against the petitioner. This Court, therefore, directed the Tahsildar to independently go into the matter, after hearing the petitioner, and after considering the material available on record. Ext.P7 dated 22.12.2016 is the order passed by the Tahsildar, pursuant to the directions in Ext.P3 judgment. This Court, therefore, directed the Tahsildar to independently go into the matter, after hearing the petitioner, and after considering the material available on record. Ext.P7 dated 22.12.2016 is the order passed by the Tahsildar, pursuant to the directions in Ext.P3 judgment. Therein, the Tahsildar considers the material available in the file, but does not expressly consider Ext.P2 report of the Deputy Director (Survey), that had been considered by the District Collector while passing Ext.P1 order, and thereafter comes to a conclusion that, with regard to 13 Pattayams that had been issued to various persons as detailed in Ext.P7 order, action was to be taken against the assignees of the lands in question for an alleged violation of the conditions of the said Pattayams. With regard to the two Pattayams referred above, namely: LA(P)625/MUM and LA(P)632/MUM, it was found that the records available with the revenue department indicated that no such Pattayams had in fact been issued to any assignees. The inference drawn by the Tahsildar is that, the Pattayams produced by the petitioner as Exts.P5 and P6, are fabricated documents, on which no reliance can be placed. In Ext.P7 order, however, after observing so, the Tahsildar found that the aforesaid Pattayams were liable to be cancelled, and proceeded to cancel the same. A recommendation was also made to the District Collector to initiate action against the officials who had played a role in the alleged fabrication of the two Pattayams. In the writ petition, the petitioner impugns Ext.P7 order, inter alia, on the contention that, the stand taken by the respondent Tahsildar is contradictory, in that, while on the one hand it is the case of the respondents that no Pattayams bearing Nos. LA(P)625/MUM and LA(P)632/MUM had in fact been issued by the revenue department, in the subsequent portion of the same order, the finding is that the Pattayams were liable to be cancelled in accordance with the provisions of the Land Assignment Act and Rules, read with the conditions specified in the Pattayams themselves. It is further contended that, while passing Ext.P7 order, the Tahsildar did not take note of Ext.P2 report of the Deputy Director (Survey) which had been taken note of by the District Collector in Ext.P1 order, by which the matter had been remanded to the Tahsildar. It is further contended that, while passing Ext.P7 order, the Tahsildar did not take note of Ext.P2 report of the Deputy Director (Survey) which had been taken note of by the District Collector in Ext.P1 order, by which the matter had been remanded to the Tahsildar. It is contended therefore that Ext.P7 order cannot be legally sustained and hence, the petitioner ought to be permitted to proceed with his lawful activities based on the licenses and permits obtained by him from various statutory authorities. 2. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is the stand of the respondents that the Pattayams (Exts.P5 and P6) produced by the petitioner along with the writ petition, are non-existent and the documents produced are fabricated ones. It is also the case of the respondents that the petitioners had illegally obtained the said Pattayams through a fraudulent manner and that the property in question is still under the ownership of the State. Ext.P7 order passed by the Tahsildar is sought to be justified on the above line of reasoning as also the grounds stated in Ext.P7 order itself. 3. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner refuting the contentions in the counter affidavit and pointing out that, relying on the Pattayams granted to the original assignees, there have been subsequent transfers of the land in question, eventually leading to the petitioner coming under ownership of the said land, and hence, the respondents cannot now be heard to contend that the Pattayams granted in favour of the original assignee were fabricated documents, on which no reliance could be placed. 4. I have heard Sri. A.V. Thomas, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Jaffer Khan, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents as also Sri. T.C. Suresh Menon, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Panchayat. 5. 4. I have heard Sri. A.V. Thomas, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Jaffer Khan, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents as also Sri. T.C. Suresh Menon, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Panchayat. 5. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I find from a perusal of Ext.P7 order of the 3rd respondent that there is an inherent contradiction in the said order, in that while the initial part of the order, which deals with the two Pattayams, namely; LA(P)625/MUM and LA(P)632/MUM, the suggestion is that, no such Pattayams were issued by the revenue department and that Exts.P5 and P6 documents that were produced by the petitioners were fabricated documents obtained with the assistance of an officer of the revenue department, in the latter part of the order, the action taken by the 3rd respondent is to cancel the aforesaid two Pattayams. In my view, the 3rd respondent could not have exercised a power to cancel the Pattayams, which even according to him, had never been issued by the revenue department. If it is the case of the 3rd respondent that there was no Pattayam issued in respect of the lands in question, as seems to be the case in Ext.P1 order of the District Collector also, then the only stand that could have been adopted by the 3rd respondent is that the lands in the possession of the petitioner, and on which mining activities are currently being carried on, are actually Government lands, the possession of which, the Government is entitled to resume. In that event, one would have expected the 3rd respondent to initiate proceedings under the Land Conservancy Act and not proceedings under the Land Assignment Act and Rules for the purposes of resumption of the land from the petitioner. I also note that, while passing Ext.P7 order, the 3rd respondent has not considered Ext.P2 report that was available before the District Collector while passing Ext.P1 order. In Ext.P2 report of the Deputy Director (Survey), the indication is that the entire lands comprised in Sy.No.364 of Mulayam Village had been assigned in two lots to various assignees and there was no land remaining in the said survey number for assignment. In Ext.P2 report of the Deputy Director (Survey), the indication is that the entire lands comprised in Sy.No.364 of Mulayam Village had been assigned in two lots to various assignees and there was no land remaining in the said survey number for assignment. The said report is not seen considered in Ext.P7, which refers only to other material that was available before the 3rd respondent, which led him to the conclusion as already noted above. Although the learned Government Pleader brings to my notice a subsequent report dated 29.11.2016 of the Deputy Director (Survey), the said report also is not seen considered in Ext.P7 order of the Tahsildar. Under the said circumstances, I am of the view that Ext.P7 order of the 3rd respondent cannot be legally sustained. I therefore, quash Ext.P7 order, with consequential relief’s to the petitioner, making it clear, however, that nothing in this judgment shall stand in the way of the official respondents of the State, taking any action in accordance with law, for resumption of the lands belonging to the petitioner, in the event of there being material to establish either that there were no Pattayams issued to the original assignees of the land or that, if the Pattayams were actually issued to assignees, the petitioner had occasioned a violation of the terms of the Pattayams so issued. Needless to say, any such proceedings shall be initiated against the petitioner only after due notice to him of the proposed course of action, and after hearing him.