JUDGMENT (Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings in No.G2/26221/06, dated 16.08.2012 and quash the same as illegal and consequently forbear the respondents from in any way dispossessing the petitioner of her land in Survey No.193/2 of Keelayur Village group of villages, Illayankudi Taluk, Sivagangai District.) 1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging an order under which the assignment patta granted in favour of the writ petitioner's father-in-law was cancelled. 2. The petitioner's father-in-law namely Mohamed Abuthahir was granted free assignment for an extent of 5 acres in Survey No.193 on 15.04.1965. The revenue records also got mutated in his name on 20.04.1978. The Deputy Tahsildar had directed the said Mohamed Abuthahir to pay market value of the property which was assigned in his favour. The said payment was remitted by the Mohamed Abuthahir on 26.11.1979 and thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai has confirmed the order of assignment. The revenue patta was granted in favour of the said Mohamed Abuthahir under Patta No.827 and he continues to pay the kist. 3. The second respondent herein had passed an order on 15.05.2006 cancelling 359 orders of assignment on the ground that erroneously Patta has been granted in favour of the Mohamed Abuthahir during the UDR proceedings. That apart, the assignee has not brought the land into cultivation for so many number of years. The second respondent further found that these lands are valuable lands and they may be required for construction of Government buildings in future. Hence, he passed an order cancelling the order of assignment, the sub-division effected and pattas granted in favour of the assignees. 4. The writ petitioner had filed an appeal before the first respondent. The first respondent herein after hearing the writ petitioner, has passed the impugned order on 16.08.2012 confirming the order passed by the second respondent herein. The first respondent has concurred with the findings of the second respondent on the ground that the condition attached to the order of assignment has been violated and the lands have not been brought under cultivation. Mere payment of kist will not prove the cultivation of the land, but it is only a corroborative evidence of ownership. The first respondent has concurred with the findings of the second respondent on the ground that the condition attached to the order of assignment has been violated and the lands have not been brought under cultivation. Mere payment of kist will not prove the cultivation of the land, but it is only a corroborative evidence of ownership. This is under challenge in the present writ petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that though the order of assignment was originally granted free of cost, later the revenue authorities insisted upon the payment of market value of the assigned land. Once the market value is paid, thereafter the authorities cannot contend that the conditions of the order of assignment have been violated. 6. The learned counsel had further contended that the order of assignment was made in the year 1965 and cancellation proceedings have been initiated in the year 2006 after a lapse of 40 years. At this length of time, the order of assignment cannot be cancelled for whatever reason. He had further contended that the order of assignment is dated 15.04.1965 which is much prior to 1973 during which the power was granted to the revenue authorities to cancel the order of assignment even beyond a period of 3 years. This order of assignment being of the year 1965, the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction whatsoever to cancel the order of assignment after a period of 3 years. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that the petitioner has produced the kist receipts and also Adangal receipts which would clearly indicate that the land was brought under cultivation. Hence, the respondents 1 and 2 were not correct in arriving at a finding that the land was not brought under cultivation. The learned counsel had relied upon a judgement of our High Court reported in 2021-1-Writ.L.R.568 ( Seriya Pushpam, rep.by her power of attorney M.Jayakumar Vs. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai and others) to contend that the authorities have no power to cancel the order of assignment beyond a period of 3 years when the order of assignment has been granted prior to 1973. The learned counsel had also relied upon a judgement of our High Court made in WP(MD).Nos.8799 and 11231 of 2017 dated 24.06.2022 ( M.S.A.Musthafa Ibrahim Vs. The learned counsel had also relied upon a judgement of our High Court made in WP(MD).Nos.8799 and 11231 of 2017 dated 24.06.2022 ( M.S.A.Musthafa Ibrahim Vs. The Principal Secretary/ Commissioner of Land Administration (FAC) and Commissioner of Survey and Settlement, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005 and others) to contend that after a long lapse of time, the order of assignment cannot be cancelled. 8. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents had contended that no document has been produced with regard to remittence of the amount towards the market value of land assigned in favour of the assignee. 9. The learned Additional Government Pleader had further contended that the prime purpose of assignment is to bring the property to cultivation. When the same has not been brought into cultivation, as per Revenue Standing Order No.15, the authority is empowered to cancel the said order of assignment. He had further contended that for various fasli year the adangal extract indicate that the land has been left fallow. He had further contended that the respondents 1 and 2 have rightly arrived at a finding that wrongly Patta has been granted during the UDR proceedings based upon the certain erroneous sub-divisions. Merely because cost is paid for the assigned land, it does not convert the assignment into a sale deed. The land is given free of cost to the poor people and value is charged for the people who gave afford for the same. This would not convert the order of assignment into an absolute sale by the Government, so that the assignee can get rid of the condition imposed in the order of assignment. Hence, he prayed for sustaining the order passed by the respondents 1 and 2. 10. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 11. There is no dispute that the petitioner's father-in-law was granted an order of assignment on 15.04.1965. He was directed to pay the market value on 20.04.1978. The learned Additional Government Pleader had contended that there is no proof for payment of the said market value. However, a perusal of the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai clarifies that the land value of Rs.1352/- has been remitted in the Sub Treasury, Illayankudi by the said Mohamed Abuthahir in Challan No.312 dated 26.11.1979. The learned Additional Government Pleader had contended that there is no proof for payment of the said market value. However, a perusal of the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai clarifies that the land value of Rs.1352/- has been remitted in the Sub Treasury, Illayankudi by the said Mohamed Abuthahir in Challan No.312 dated 26.11.1979. Hence, it is clear that the market value of the land has been paid by the assignee. 12. The respondents 1 and 2 have cancelled the order of assignment mainly on the ground that the land has been not brought into cultivation within a period of three years from the date of assignment. The order of assignment has been granted in the year 1965 and the Adangal extract of the year 1975 indicate that the millets have been cultivated in the assigned land. The tax receipts have also been produced on the side of the assignee for the year 1967, 1988 and several fasli years from 1991 onwards. The authorities without assigning any reason for rejecting these documents, have arrived at a finding that mere payment of kist receipt will not prove the cultivation of the land. In fact, the authorities have not taken into consideration the Adangal extract which would clearly indicate that millets have been cultivated by the assignee. Hence, the findings of the respondents 1 and 2 that the lands were not at all brought into cultivation within 3 years from the date of order of assignment is not legally sustainable. 13. Admittedly, the lands being a rainfed ( Tharisu), cultivation cannot be carried out for all the fasli years. Just because cultivation was not done during the certain fasli years, it cannot be construed that the land was never brought into cultivation by the assignee. In fact, the Government is in the habit of waiving tax for the farmers during the drought year. Hence, the dry land of assignees can never be considered to be violation in the order of assignment just because they have not cultivated the land during certain fasli years. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that the Patta has been issued in the year 1965. At the time of granting Patta, the revenue authorities had power to cancel the said assignment only within a period of 3 years from the date of such assignment. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that the Patta has been issued in the year 1965. At the time of granting Patta, the revenue authorities had power to cancel the said assignment only within a period of 3 years from the date of such assignment. However by way of G.O.Ms.No.2555 Revenue dated 14.05.1973 powers were conferred upon the appropriate official to cancel the order of assignment without reference to any time limit. The said G.O, was interpreted by our High Court in W.P.No.906 of 1980 by an order dated 17.06.1986 (S.Padmavathi Vs. Secretary to Government and others) to the effect that the said Government order will have only prospective effect. In other words, any assignment i.e. After 14.05.1973 alone can be cancelled without reference to any time limit. He relied upon Paragraph No.16 of the judgment of our High Court reported in 2021-1-Writ.L.R.568 ( Seriya Pushpam, rep.by her power of attorney M.Jayakumar Vs. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai and others) which is extracted as follows: “16. As it has been repeatedly held by this Court in several precedents above referred to above, assignment of land made prior to 1973 cannot be cancelled beyond a period of three years from the date of assignment. Even on the ground of misrepresentation or on the ground of want of authority for assignment, it is not open for the respondent to cancel assignment after a lapse of a few decades” 15. This judgment has been followed by the another learned Single Judge in WP(MD).Nos.8799 and 11231 of 2017 dated 24.06.2022 ( M.S.A.Musthafa Ibrahim Vs. The Principal Secretary/ Commissioner of Land Administration (FAC) and Commissioner of Survey and Settlement, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005 and others) in which Paragraph No.7 is extracted as follows: “ 7. In any event, an order of assignment cannot be cancelled after a lapse of more than half century. Here, the authority is casting stigma on the assignee namely Kaleemunisa Bibi. The assignee passed away on 02.06.2004. A dead person cannot be stigmatized. If during her life time, the proceedings had been initiated, she probably could have had an appropriate defence to project. It is well settled that the reputation of the dead person is also a valuable right in law. By passing the impugned order, this right has been infringed by the authority” 16. A dead person cannot be stigmatized. If during her life time, the proceedings had been initiated, she probably could have had an appropriate defence to project. It is well settled that the reputation of the dead person is also a valuable right in law. By passing the impugned order, this right has been infringed by the authority” 16. In view of the above said judgment, it is clear that the order of assignment which is granted prior to 14.05.1973 can be cancelled only within a period of three years from the date of order of assignment. That apart, even on the ground of misrepresentation, the said order of assignment cannot be considered after a lapse of few decades. In the present case, the order of assignment is sought to be cancelled after a period of 40 years. The reason that are assigned for cancelling the order of assignment have already been found to be not legally sustainable in the previous paragraphs. Hence, the impugned order also suffers from lack of authority to cancel the order of assignment apart from the merits. 17. In view of the above said discussion, the order impugned in the writ petition is set aside. The writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.