JUDGMENT HULUVADI G. RAMESH, J. 1. Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader for the appellant and Mr.T.Arul, learned counsel, who takes notice for the respondent. 2. This writ appeal is directed as against the order, dated 02.08.2011 passed in W.P(MD)No.1974 of 2006. 3. With regard to assignment of land in question, the learned Single Judge passed an order in paragraph No.21 and the same reads as follows:- "21. The contention of the petitioner that there was no notification in force under the Tamil Nadu Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Special Sites and Remains Act at the time of allotment, and in any case, the Act does not bar assignment of land and it had only regulates the assignment, also deserves to be accepted as the authorities under an Act, can regulate the use of land, but, it certainly cannot ask respondent No.2 to cancel the allotment after a lapse of ten years." 4. However, against which, this Writ Appeal is filed by the State. 5. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the State, the land in question comes within the close vicinity of the Tamil Nadu Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Special Sites i.e., nearby monuments. 6. However, what is been noticed is that the said assignment was made during the year 1992 and it was enjoyed for more than 12 years without any interruption or any objection. At later stage, nearly after a lapse of 10 years, action was taken to cancel the assignment made. The assignment was made under a scheme within the category of landless person, as the income was below Rs. 10,000/- per annum. 7. The only ground raised by the State is that there was augmentation of income of more than Rs. 10,000/- etc. 8. However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner contended that the learned Single Judge found that subsequent increase in the salary will not take away the vested right of assignment to the respondent/writ petitioner. He further contended that at the relevant point of time, there was no such regulation for monitoring such allotment nearby the vicinity of the historical monuments. 9. He further contended that at the relevant point of time, there was no such regulation for monitoring such allotment nearby the vicinity of the historical monuments. 9. In view of the above, by way of subsequent development if it is found that the property is disturbing the maintenance of the historical monuments, the same can be looked into at the appropriate time and an independent decision shall be taken in the matter. However, so far no such plea has been raised by the State. 10. In the result, this Writ Appeal does not deserve consideration and accordingly, the same is dismissed by confirming the order, dated 02.08.2011 made in W.P(MD)No.1974 of 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.