JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarifed Mandamus, to call for the entire records connected with the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent District Collector in Na.Ka.No.24077/2014/A4 dated 08/09/2014 and quash the same.) 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 08.09.2014, whereby, the 2nd respondent has directed the possession of the property to be handed over to the Slum Clearance Board and also permitted the Slum Clearance Board to construct multistoried buildings. 2. The case of the petitioner is that she has purchased the plot in question through a registered Sale Deed dated 18.01.2010. After purchase of the plot, the same is lying vacant till date. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the cancellation of the assignment and the resumption of land was beyond the jurisdiction of the RDO and hence, the consequential order passed by the District Collector directing the possession to be handed over to the Slum Clearance Board for construction of multi-storied buildings is also illegal. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court. 4. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 11.08.2022, this Court passed the following order: This Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in all these writ petitions. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue that is involved in these writ petitions is squarely covered by the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.6404 etc., of 2015 dated 18.04.2022. It was submitted that RSO-15 confers power only to the Commissioner of Land Administration / Government for cancelling the assignment and to resume the lands, wherever, the lands have been assigned prior to 14.05.1973. It was contended that in the present case, admittedly, it was only the RDO who through proceedings dated 19.08.1986, cancelled the assignment and ordered for the resumption of the land. The assignment in this case had taken place as early as in the year 1925. Hence, it was submitted that the RDO did not have the power to cancel the assignment and resume the land and that power is vested only with the Commissioner of Land Administration or the Government. The earlier order passed by this Court interfering with the cancellation and resumption of lands was exactly on this ground. 2. Hence, it was submitted that the RDO did not have the power to cancel the assignment and resume the land and that power is vested only with the Commissioner of Land Administration or the Government. The earlier order passed by this Court interfering with the cancellation and resumption of lands was exactly on this ground. 2. The learned Government Advocate shall take instructions in this regard and shall satisfy this Court as to how the cancellation of assignment and resumption of land is in accordance with RSO-15. If the very cancellation of assignment and resumption of land is illegal, the consequential order passed by the District Collector which has been put to challenge in all these writ petitions must also fail. 3. Post these writ petitions under the caption 'Part Heard Cases' on 18.08.2022. 4. The Registry is directed to print the name of Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the 6th respondent/Slum Clearance Board. 5. Heard Mr.K.Thilageswaran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr.S.Arumugam, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 5 and Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the 6th respondent. 6. In the present case, it is very clear from the counter affidavit filed by the District Collector that the order cancelling the assignment and resumption of land to the Government, was passed by the RDO through proceedings dated 19.08.1996. Pursuant to the same, the Tahsildar had resumed the land and it was converted as “Natham” in the revenue records. Thereafter, the District Collector passed the impugned order and the Slum Clearance Board was given the permission to construct multi- storied tenements. The project was also started. 7. It is evident from the above order passed by this Court on 11.08.2022 that RSO-15 confers power only to the Commissioner of Land Administration / Government for cancelling the assignment and to resume the lands. However, it is the RDO who had passed the order of cancellation of assignment and resumption of lands and it is well beyond the power and jurisdiction of the RDO. 8. When the same issue came up for consideration in W.P.Nos.6404 etc., of 2015, this Court passed the following order: 6. As per Revenue Standing Order 15 -41, the Revenue Divisional Officer has a power to set apart certain lands for the purpose of assigning it to the Schedule Caste. 8. When the same issue came up for consideration in W.P.Nos.6404 etc., of 2015, this Court passed the following order: 6. As per Revenue Standing Order 15 -41, the Revenue Divisional Officer has a power to set apart certain lands for the purpose of assigning it to the Schedule Caste. As per RSO - 15 (41) 4(i), restrictions can be imposed on alienation that the land shall not be alienated to any other person other than the member of Scheduled Caste in any manner before expiry of 10 years from the date of grant and not even thereafter, except to member of the same Caste. 7. Restrictions specified in RSO - 15 can be verified only from the original records of the Government. But, as found by the Revenue Divisional Officer, no original records were available with the respondents to verify the above facts. In such circumstances, cancellation of patta issued to the original assignee namely Pazhani Mathari in the year 1927 is baseless and without any legal evidence. Without ascertaining that this land was set apart for the Scheduled Caste, there cannot be any cancellation of assignment. 8. Be that as it may, insofar the resumption of land is concerned, the RSO - 15 confers power on the authorities for the resumption. As per RSO - 15 (2) (xi), the resuming authority for breach of any condition of assignment shall be the Commissioner of Land Administration/ Government for the lands assigned prior to 14.05.1973. Clause - (xi) reads as under:- (xi) Resuming authority:- The authority competent to resume or re-enter on lands for breach of any condition of assignment shall be as follows:- (a) The Tahsildar, if the land is nonvaluable; (b) The Revenue Divisional Officer if the land is valuable; and (c) The Commissioner of Land Administration/ Government, for the lands assigned prior to 14.05.1973. 9. In the instant case, in spite of categorical findings of the District Revenue Officer that the original files were not available and there was lot of corrections and interpolation in respect of inclusion of the survey number of the petitioner. Without any authority, the Revenue Divisional Officer has assumed that it is the land assigned to the Scheduled Caste with restrictions. Without any authority, the Revenue Divisional Officer has assumed that it is the land assigned to the Scheduled Caste with restrictions. In any event, the third respondent has no power to resume or re-enter of the land, which is said to have been assigned prior to 14.05.1973, but in the instant case during 1927. Therefore, the order of the third respondent is ultra vires, illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the entire proceedings stands vitiated for want of power and substantial legal evidence. Therefore, in the absence of any record to prove that the said land in dispute was set apart for Scheduled Caste and it was assigned to the member of the Scheduled Caste with restrictions, the respondents have no power to deal with the lands 9. The above order will squarely apply to the facts of the present case. Unfortunately, even in the present case, no original records are available and the learned Government Advocate was not in a position to answer many of the questions that were posed by this Court due to non-availability of the records. 10. This Court also enquired the learned Government Advocate as to whether any appeal was filed as against the order passed in W.P.Nos.6404 etc., of 2015 and it is stated that the appeals are yet to be filed and it is now at the stage of taking the opinion. It is therefore clear that the earlier order passed by this Court is in force till date and it also concerns the lands in Keeranatham Village, Coimbatore District. 11. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 08.09.2014, passed by the District Collector is liable to be interfered by this Court, since it is based on the earlier orders passed by the RDO cancelling the assignment and resuming the lands which has been found to be illegal and beyond the powers of the RDO. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings of the District Collector dated 08.09.2014, is quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned. It goes without saying that it will always be open to the concerned authority to initiate proceedings for the cancellation of assignment, if so advised and if there is any violation of the conditions of the original assignment. If any such proceedings are initiated, the petitioner shall be put on notice. It goes without saying that it will always be open to the concerned authority to initiate proceedings for the cancellation of assignment, if so advised and if there is any violation of the conditions of the original assignment. If any such proceedings are initiated, the petitioner shall be put on notice. Insofar as the possession claimed by the petitioner is concerned, the present status quo shall be maintained until the lands are resumed in the manner known to law. 12. In the result, this writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.