ORDER : 1. The writ petitioner challenges the order of the second respondent in NE.Mu.A2/7975/2021 dated 03.12.2021 and consequent proceedings of the first respondent dated 12.07.2022 and consequently seeks restoration of patta in favour of the petitioner. 2. I have heard Mr.R.Murali, learned counsel for the petitioner, M.Lingadurai, learned Special Government Pleader, for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.S.Palanivelayutham, learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 5. I have also gone through the records. 3. The case of the writ petitioner is that larger extent of lands comprised in survey No.213 were classified as Government Punja Tharisu lands. The Government formulated a scheme to assign lands to landless persons and survey No.213 was subdivided and pattas were granted to eligible persons. It is the further case of the petitioner that an extent of 0.35.5 Ares, in survey No.213/16 was granted in favour of one Mareeswari, W/o Selvaraj, vide proceedings dated 02.05.2007 and similarly in respect of another extent of 0.35.5 Ares in survey No.213/7, patta was granted in favour of one Thangaraj, S/o. Sakkari Nadar, vide proceedings of even date. The said assignees have alienated the properties in favour of the petitioner, who has purchased the said lands by sale deeds dated 29.05.2018 and 05.06.2018, both documents being duly registered. The petitioner, even at the time of presenting the document for registration, was required to get a No objection certificate from the Tahsildar, Kovilpatti, to enable the Sub Registrar, Ettayapuram, to go ahead and register the sale deed. The Tahsildar, Kovilpatti has also issued a letter to the Sub Registrar, Ettayapuram, confirming that the survey No.213/6 is not Government Tharisu and it has been mutated in the name of Mareeswari. Based on the said letter of the Tahsildar, the sale deed was registered by the Sub Registrar, Ettayapuram. Subsequent to the purchase, the petitioner has approached the third respondent for transfer of patta. The third respondent also acted upon the said application of the petitioner and vide proceedings dated 12.05.2018, effected mutation of patta in the name of the petitioner in respect of both survey Nos.213/6 and 213/7. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the said lands and has also obtained electricity service connection, dug a bore-well and cultivating the said lands by effecting improvements to the lands, out of the hard earned money of the petitioner. 4. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the said lands and has also obtained electricity service connection, dug a bore-well and cultivating the said lands by effecting improvements to the lands, out of the hard earned money of the petitioner. 4. While matters stood there, the respondents 4 and 5 claimed the property comprised in survey Nos.213/6, 213/7 and 241/1 were their ancestral properties and made a claim to the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Revenue Divisional Officer, on enquiry, did not accept the claim of the respondents 4 and 5 in respect of survey Nos.213/6 and 213/7, but however found that the original assignees Mareeswari and Thangaraj had violated the condition of assignment by selling the property to the petitioner and cancelled the original assignments in favour of Mareeswari and Thangaraj. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal to the District Revenue Officer. The respondents 4 and 5 also preferred an appeal to the District Revenue Officer, since their case was also not accepted by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The first respondent confirming the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, dismissed both the appeals and directed the name of the Government to be restored as the owner of the survey No.213/6 and 213/7. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the revenue officials had already effected transfer of patta in favour of the petitioner in as early as on 12.07.2018 and all along the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the subject lands, the respondents ought not to have cancelled the assignment. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that no proper enquiry was conducted and the original assignees whose assignment was cancelled were also not put on notice and heard, before the impugned order came to be passed. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in T. Tirumalai Gounder and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2010 (5) L.W. 289 as well as the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A. (MD) No. 1272 of 2022 ( K. Chinnapandi Vs. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in T. Tirumalai Gounder and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2010 (5) L.W. 289 as well as the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A. (MD) No. 1272 of 2022 ( K. Chinnapandi Vs. Alagarsamy ) dated 11.04.2023, where the Hon'ble Division Benches of this Court have consistently held that once the authorities have accepted the alienations and also effected mutations in the revenue records, it would not be open to cancel the assignments, after considerable delay alleging violation of the conditions of assignment or on the ground that there has been no permission before sale. The learned counsel for the petitioner would therefore pray for the writ petition being allowed as prayed for. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 5 would submit that the contention of the respondents 4 and 5 have not been properly appreciated by the authorities and the official respondents have erroneously rejected the application of the respondents 4 and 5 for issuance of patta in their name. 9. The learned Special Government Pleader, Mr.M.Lingadurai, would contend that the orders impugned in the writ petition are in order and do not require any interference whatso ever, since admittedly the original assignees have violated the conditions of assignment by alienating the lands assigned to them and conditions. He would therefore pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 10. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side. 11. Firstly, I shall deal with the right of the respondents 4 and 5. No doubt the respondents 4 and 5 apart from opposing request of the petitioner had also independently sought for issuance of patta in their name, contending that the properties are ancestral properties. Admittedly, the respondents 4 and 5 have not challenged the order, which is impugned in the present writ petition. Despite, duly challenging the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, which was also challenged by the writ petitioner, the respondents 4 and 5 have not further challenged the order impugned in this writ petition and had accepted the same. Admittedly, the respondents 4 and 5 have not challenged the order, which is impugned in the present writ petition. Despite, duly challenging the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, which was also challenged by the writ petitioner, the respondents 4 and 5 have not further challenged the order impugned in this writ petition and had accepted the same. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 5 cannot be countenanced that the case of the respondents 4 and 5 would also have to be considered by the authorities. 12. Coming to the case of the petitioner, admittedly, the petitioner had purchased the subject lands from two of the assignees, Mareeswari and Thangaraj and the same is not disputed by the officials. The only reason cited by the authorities is that the assignees have sold the lands in survey No.213/6 and 213/7, violating the assignment condition. However, despite such a contention being the backbone of the impugned order, I find two relevant and significant factors, which would favour with the writ petitioner. Firstly, when the sale deed in favour of the petitioner was proposed to be registered, the Sub Registrar has raised a specific query with regard to the assignment granted in favour of the vendor of the petitioner and the Tahsildar has given a certificate that the lands have been assigned to the vendor of the petitioner and only thereafter, the sale deed has been accepted for registration by the Sub Registrar. Secondly, after the purchase made by the petitioner, the revenue authorities have also mutated patta in the name of the petitioner. 13. From these factors, it is clear that the respondents have acted upon the alienation made by the original assignees. Therefore, in view of the ratio laid down in T.Tirumalai 's case as well as K.Chinnapandi 's case, the respondents after having effected mutation of records in the name of alienee/purchaser from the original assignees cannot cancel the assignments. Therefore, the ratio laid down by the two Division Benches squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. 14. In fine, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to restore the patta in respect of survey Nos.213/6 and 213/7, Thuraiyur Village, Kovilpattai Taluk, in the name of the petitioner. Therefore, the ratio laid down by the two Division Benches squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. 14. In fine, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to restore the patta in respect of survey Nos.213/6 and 213/7, Thuraiyur Village, Kovilpattai Taluk, in the name of the petitioner. The said exercise shall be carried out within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.