JUDGMENT : S.S. SUNDAR, J. 1. The present writ appeal is preferred by the District Collector, Kancheepuram District and other revenue officials as against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 05.03.2020 allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent herein in WP.No.3959/2020 to quash the proceedings of the District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram District, 2 nd appellant herein, dated 27.07.2017 and to direct the appellants herein to issue patta to the respondent/writ petitioner in respect of the land measuring an extent of 1.67.0 Hectare in S.No.262/2 in Chinnavenmani Village. 2. Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this writ appeal are as follows: 3. The land which is the subject matter of this appeal, namely, an extent of 1.67.0 Hectare in S.No.262/2 in Chinnavenmani Village, was originally assgined in favour of one Tmt.Rubavathi Ammal by proceedings dated 23.12.1967. The assignment was of course, subject to conditions as found in D-Form Patta. Tmt.Rubavathi Ammal executed a Sale Deed in respect of the said property in favour of one Dhanapal Naicker vide Sale Deed dated 24.08.1978. It was thereafter the said Dhanapal Naicker sold the property in favour of the respondent herein/writ petitioner by a registered Sale Deed dated 23.11.1992. Though patta was transferred in the name of vendor of the writ petitioner/respondent herein, on the application filed by the writ petitioner for mutation of patta in his name, the Tahsildar, Maduranthakam Taluk, who is the 4 th appellant herein, vide proceedings dated 04.08.2009, rejected the application. Thereafter, the respondent herein filed a writ petition challenging the order of Tahsildar and the said writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 21.12.2009. Since the Tahsildar while rejecting the application for mutation, proceeded as if the writ petitioner was seeking assignment, this Court while quashing the order of Tahsildar, remitted the matter to the 4 th appellant herein/Tahsildar to reconsider the issue and pass orders within stipulated time. It was thereafter the Tahsildar/4 th appellant herein, rejected the representation on the ground that the land is a Government poramboke land and had been registered as Punjai Tharisu in Village Accounts. 4. The fact that the land had been assigned in favour of Mrs.Rubavathi Ammal and thereafter, there was transfer of patta in the name of the subsequent purchaser, was not even referred to in the order of Tahsildar. 4. The fact that the land had been assigned in favour of Mrs.Rubavathi Ammal and thereafter, there was transfer of patta in the name of the subsequent purchaser, was not even referred to in the order of Tahsildar. Thereafter, when the writ petitioner/respondent herein filed another writ petition in WP.No.4470/2012, the said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent herein to file an appeal against the order of the 4th appellant herein. Thereafter, the respondent herein filed an appeal before the District Revenue Officer, 2 nd appellant herein and the 2 nd appellant rejected the appeal vide proceedings dated 27.07.2017. 5. The operative portion of the order of the 2 nd appellant dated 27.07.2017 reads as follows:- 6. A counter affidavit was filed by the 4 th appellant herein to the effect that the assignment in favour of Tmt.Rubavathi Ammal was cancelled by the 2 nd appellant herein vide proceedings dated 17.12.1980 by referring to the entry in the Village Chitta for the Fasli year 1388. Therefore, the only defence taken by the Tahsildar in his counter affidavit is that the assignment granted in favour of Tmt.Rubavathi Ammal was cancelled vide order dated 17.12.1980. 7. The order of 2 nd appellant was impugned in the writ petition filed by the respondent herein in WP.No.3959/2018. The learned Single Judge, after finding that only the assignment granted in S.Nos.262/1 and 263 was cancelled by proceedings dated 23.08.1983 as per the report of the Tahsildar, held that the case of the Tahsildar that assignment in favour of Tmt.Rubavathi Ammal was cancelled, is not established by production of records. The learned Judge also noticed that the entry in the chitta shows cancellation of assignment only in respect of lands in S.Nos.262/1 and 263 and not S.No.262/2 which was registered in the name of the vendor of respondent herein. In the absence of any material produced by the appellants before this Court, the learned Judge held that patta land had been wrongly classified as 'Tharisu' and therefore, the impugned order passed by the 2 nd appellant herein, rejecting the appeal preferred by the writ petitioner/respondent herein, cannot be sustained. In the absence of any material produced by the appellants before this Court, the learned Judge held that patta land had been wrongly classified as 'Tharisu' and therefore, the impugned order passed by the 2 nd appellant herein, rejecting the appeal preferred by the writ petitioner/respondent herein, cannot be sustained. Taking note of the fact that inclusion of S.No.262/2 in the revenue records as 'Tharisu' land has been done behind the back of the owner of the property, the learned Judge held that such entries cannot be put against the respondent herein to deny him patta. Therefore, the writ petition was allowed by quashing the order of the 2 nd appellant herein dated 27.07.2017 and by directing the appellants to make necessary changes in the revenue records and to issue patta in favour of the respondent herein in respect of S.No.262/2 in Chinnavenmani Village. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the appellants have preferred the present writ appeal. 8. Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants has reiterated the same points that were urged by the appellants before the learned Single Judge. The 4 th appellant/Tahsildar filed a Status Report. This Status Report is nothing but an addition to mislead this Court. A new ground is raised before this Court by the appellants on the basis of the report by stating that the assignment in favour of Tmt.Rubavathi Ammal in the year 1967 was free of cost subject to specific conditions. It is further stated that the assignee created a mortgage for a sum of Rs.2,700/- in favour of Cooperative Bank, Madurantakam on 09.03.1971 in violation of one of the conditions for assignment that the assignee shall not sell or mortgage the property for ten years. Since the terms and conditions of the assignment was violated, it is stated that the land was resumed to the original position during 1992 as Government poramboke land. 9. It has now become the regular practice of revenue officials to alter the entries in respect of lands which are assigned in favour of individuals as per the Revenue Standing Orders and to contest the challenge to the cancellation of the assignment by producing irrelevant records taking full advantage of their position to manipulate records according to the needs. This conduct and attitude of the revenue officials has been deprecated by this Court on several occasions. 10. This conduct and attitude of the revenue officials has been deprecated by this Court on several occasions. 10. The learned Single Judge has already held that the appellants cannot improve their case by adding or supplementing in the counter affidavit in the absence of such reason found in the order impugned. The appellants have not produced a scrap of paper except the 'A' register prepared after UDR showing registration of the disputed property as 'Tharisu'. The only other document which was also referred to in the order of the learned Single Judge, gives a clear indication that the cancellation of assignment was only in respect of lands in S.Nos.262/1 and 263 as per the proceedings of the District Revenue Officer dated 23.08.1983 and that the property in S.No.262/2 remain in the holdings of vendor of respondent herein even as per the revenue records. Absolutely there is no supporting document to substantiate how the property in S.No.262/2 was recorded as 'Tharisu'. 11. When an assignment is lawfully made as per the Revenue Standing Orders in favour of any individual. There is transfer of absolute title in favour of the assignee. Unless the cancellation of assignment in favour of the original assignee is by a competent authority after issuing show cause notice establishing that the assignment is liable to be cancelled for reasons and action for cancellation is initiated within a reasonable time, the assignee or a transferee cannot be surprised after several decades by creating bogus records or by making self serving entries in revenue records. 12. In the instant case, no document or proceedings is produced to show that assignment was cancelled by a process known to law. Even as per the entry shown and produced before this Court, there is no reference to the cancellation of assignment. However, a submission was made as if assignment was cancelled in 1980 itself by the 2 nd appellant herein. No document to suggest such cancellation is produced before this Court. Cancellation of assignment cannot be done without even holding enquiry. When the assignee executed a Sale Deed after ten years, the title passes to the assignee. It is not the case of the appellants that the cancellation was done after issuing notice to the vendor of the respondent herein. No document to suggest such cancellation is produced before this Court. Cancellation of assignment cannot be done without even holding enquiry. When the assignee executed a Sale Deed after ten years, the title passes to the assignee. It is not the case of the appellants that the cancellation was done after issuing notice to the vendor of the respondent herein. It has now become the trend of revenue officials to file status report in stead of filing counter affidavit containing statements without supporting materials. In a few cases, it is possible for the revenue officials some time to collude with the individuals to create records. However, in the present case it is otherwise. Without a formal proceedings for cancellation, the revenue officials presumed that there was cancellation of assignment since the land has been classified as 'Tharisu'. 13. In the status report and counter affidavit, the appellants have given reasons which are not found in the order impugned in the writ petition. The principle is more emphasised by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill & Another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi [1978 AIR 851] in the following lines:- ''The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose J., in Gordhandas Bhanji ''Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in mind or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to effect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.'' 14. It is well settled that the impugned order cannot be defended by reasons which are not stated in the order itself. It is well settled that the impugned order cannot be defended by reasons which are not stated in the order itself. In this case, without any supporting document to sustain the plea of cancellation, the appellants want this Court to presume the facts which are impermissible in law. 15. In the above circumstances, this Court finds no valid reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. 16. Hence, this writ appeal stands dismissed and the order of the learned Single Judge dated 05.03.2020 passed in WP.No.3959/2018 is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.