ORDER : (P.B. BALAJI, J.) WP(MD)No.11031 of 2015 has been filed challenging the patta issued by the third respondent and for consequently directing the patta to be issued to the legal heirs of the original assignee. 2. W.P.(MD)No.19130 of 2016 has been filed challenging the proceedings of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.3957/2016/A6 dated 20.08.2016 and to consequently, direct the respondents 1 to 3 to handover the lands in survey No.39/2 to the petitioner and also issue fresh patta to the petitioner. 3. I have heard Mr.T.Thirumurugan, learned counsel for the petitioner, in both the writ petitions, Mr.B.Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader, for the respondent 1 to 3 and Mr.H.Lakshmi Sankar, learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 7 in both the writ petitions. 4. The case of the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.11031 of 2015 is that her grand father, viz., Late.Chinnamuthalu Mathari was the original assignee of lands which were specially assigned to the persons from the Scheduled Caste community. The said Late.Chinnamuthalu Mathari had four daughters and a son, viz., Muthammal, Nagammal, Seeniammal, Vijaya being the daughters and Palanivel being his son. The writ petitioner is the daughter of the said Palanivel. According to the petitioner, her father being the only son, looked after the sisters. It is the further case of the petitioner that the third respondent had assigned lands of an extent of 4.5 Acres to the grand father of the petitioner, namely, Late.Chinnamuthalu Mathari, on 31.03.1969 and pursuant to the said assignment, her grand father has been cultivating the said lands. According to the petitioner, the subject lands were classified as Panchami Lands. Taking advantage of the petitioner's families illiteracy and poverty, according to the petitioner, the fourth respondent, who was politically powerful, forged documents and registered the Panchami Lands in his favour, on 11.06.1996, through a registered sale deed in document No.300/1996. Based on the said sale deed, the fourth respondent was also issued patta No.319. On coming to know of the fraud played by the fourth respondent, the petitioner has sent representation to the respondents 1 to 3 on 17.01.2014, seeking cancellation of patta issued to the fourth respondent and his wife. 5. Based on the said sale deed, the fourth respondent was also issued patta No.319. On coming to know of the fraud played by the fourth respondent, the petitioner has sent representation to the respondents 1 to 3 on 17.01.2014, seeking cancellation of patta issued to the fourth respondent and his wife. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that the third respondent has proceeded to pass the impugned order, without considering the standing orders of Board of Revenue and also the circular issued by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, which clearly prohibits alienation of lands allotted to the members of Scheduled Caste Community for a period of 10 years and that even thereafter it can be alienated only to persons belonging to depressed classes. 6. In W.P.(MD)No.19130 of 2016, the petitioner is son of Late.Chinnamuthalu Mathari, who is the father of the writ petitioner in the earlier writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.11031 of 2015. In this writ petition, the very same contentions that have been raised in the earlier writ petition by the petitioner's daughter have been reiterated, apart from additionally contending that the respondents 1 to 3 have colluded with the fourth respondent by issuing patta to him and his wife and that the petitioner has lodged a police complaint and the case was registered in Crime No.477 of 2015, dated 23.11.2015. The petitioner further states that the second respondent in and by the impugned order has been passed, without considering the classification of the lands as ”Panchami Lands” and without noticing a violation that have been complaint of. 7. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner would also rely on the order passed by me in W.P.(MD)No.17900 of 2022 (P.Murugesan V. The State of Tamil Nadu) dated 07.02.2025, wherein, I have held on the facts of the said case that the validity of any transfer of panchami land can be gone into only by the Principal Secretary, Commissioner of Land Administration and not by any other authority and on that ground, I had set aside the order passed by the District Collector and remitted the matter to the Principal Secretary, Commissioner of Land Reforms to decide the matter afresh. 8. 8. In response, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent, Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar, would first and foremost submit that when the daughter had earlier filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.11301 of 2015 for the same cause, there is no necessity for the father to file yet another writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.19130 of 2016. That apart, he would submit that the very premise on which the petitioners have come forward with the writ petitions that the lands are Panchami Lands is misconceived. He would submit that the survey No.39 was originally assigned as Panchami land as early as on 02.02.1931 in favour of Raman Mathari. However, subsequently, the said classification of the lands as Panchami Land was recalled by the Sub Collector Dindigul by an order dated 18.09.1958 and the subject lands were reclassified as “Government Tharisu Land” on 07.10.1958. It is only thereafter in the year 1969 that the father of the writ petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.19130 of 2016 and grand father of the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.11031 of 2015 was assigned the subject lands, with a condition that there can be no alienation for a period of 10 years. 9. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent, would further contend that it is only after lapse of 10 years that the petitioner along with his mother have sold the property to the fourth respondent in and by the registered sale deed dated 11.06.2019, which is executed by not only original assignee Chinnamuthalu Mathari, but, also by the petitioner and her sisters. It is further contended that the petitioner's vendor gave a consent for the fourth respondent, obtaining electricity connection based on which the fourth respondent has also got electricity service connection in his name and the petitioner has been enjoying the subject lands by erecting a bore-well and also constructing a house in the midst of the lands, which also enjoyes the amenities of electricity. The fourth respondent has also assessed the property to tax, and therefore he would further submit that there is absolutely no merit in the contentions put forth in the writ petition and the orders impugned in the writ petitions are clearly sustainable, in the light of the factual position and hence no interference is warranted. 10. The fourth respondent has also assessed the property to tax, and therefore he would further submit that there is absolutely no merit in the contentions put forth in the writ petition and the orders impugned in the writ petitions are clearly sustainable, in the light of the factual position and hence no interference is warranted. 10. The learned Additional Government Pleader, Mr.B.Saravanan, would submit that the assignment issued to the father and grand father respectively in the writ petitions was only in 1969 and assigned only under normal condition and not on Panchamar conditions. He would further submit that only based on the revenue records, the respondents have passed the orders, which are challenged in the present writ petitions and when the lands were not assigned under Panchamar conditions, there is no question of lands being resumed by the Government. The learned Additional Government Pleader would therefore pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 11. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side. I have also gone through the impugned orders as well as the typed set of papers filed by the petitioners as well as the fourth respondent. 12. The case of the writ petitioners is that the lands assigned to their father and grand father respectively were classified as Panchamar lands and therefore, the purchase by the fourth respondent was in violation of the conditions on which the assignment was originally made. The petitioners allege that the sale deed was brought about by forgery. Such allegation cannot be gone into by the revenue authorities and not even by this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the said sale deed executed by the fourth respondent as early as on 11.06.1986 has not been challenged till date and only based on the sale deed, patta was also mutated in the name of the fourth respondent and his wife. Therefore, what remains to be examined as to whether where the lands were actually panchamar lands or not and if so, if they were panchami lands whether there has been any violation of any condition of assignment. 14. Therefore, what remains to be examined as to whether where the lands were actually panchamar lands or not and if so, if they were panchami lands whether there has been any violation of any condition of assignment. 14. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the fourth respondent as well as Mr.B.Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader and as evidenced from the typed set of papers on which the fourth respondent placed reliance, no doubt originally the lands were classified as “Panchamar lands”. However, subsequently, the classification as panchamar lands has been cancelled and the lands have been reclassified as “Government Tharisu lands” even in October, 1958. Only after such reclassification, Late.Chinnamuthalu Mathari was granted an assignment with a condition restraining alienation for a period of 10 years alone. Once the lands are no longer panchamar lands, the question of any condition that it should be sold only to person hailing from Scheduled Caste cannot be sustained. Even otherwise the only condition being a restraint, on alienation for a period of 10 years and the sale in favour of the fourth respondent being much after the lapse of 10 years from the date of assignment, there can be no violation of the said condition for assignment. Further, in the typed set of papers filed by the fourth respondent, it is seen that No.39/2 has been brought under “Other conditional assignments” and Serial No.7 reflects the assignment in D.K.T.25/78, dated 10.04.1969 in favour of Chinnamuthalu Mathari. Therefore, the contentions of the petitioners that the lands are panchamar lands harping on the original classification of survey No.39/2 as panchamar lands cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that subsequently there has been reclassification of the said land as “Government Tharisu Land” and only thereafter, a normal condition al assignment issued was granted to the said Chinnamuthalu Mathari. There is no violation of any condition, as alleged by the writ petitioners. The authorities have also considered all these aspects and have applied their minds to the revenue records in place and proceeded to reject the petitioners' request for cancellation of patta issued to the fourth respondent and his wife. 15. Therefore, I do not see any justifiable grounds to interfere with the very reasoned order passed by the authorities. The authorities have also considered all these aspects and have applied their minds to the revenue records in place and proceeded to reject the petitioners' request for cancellation of patta issued to the fourth respondent and his wife. 15. Therefore, I do not see any justifiable grounds to interfere with the very reasoned order passed by the authorities. The Writ Petitions are clearly lacking in merit and as well as bonafides, since the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.19130 of 2016 has been a party to the sale deed executed in favour of the fourth respondent and without even challenging the said sale deed for the past several decades, has made a speculative attempt to cancel the revenue records alone. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the writ petitioner in both writ petitions do not deserve any relief from this Court. 16. In fine, these writ petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.