JUDGMENT : A.D. MARIA CLETE, J. 1. Heard. 2. Since all six writ petitions raise similar claims and issues, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. It is evident from the facts stated in all the affidavits that the six petitioners had acted with a common intention to secure employment under the land given category from the 3rd Respondent, Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited (TNPL), Kagithapuram - a Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking engaged in land acquisition for the expansion of its operations. The policy decision to acquire land for the establishment of TNPL Unit II in Manapparai Taluk was formally announced in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly on 07.05.2013. However, preparatory activities for the project had commenced as early as the end of 2012. 4. The Petitioners are residents of either Manapparai or Marungapuri. With knowledge that lands in Periyappatti North and Mondipatti villages in Manapparai Taluk were likely to be acquired for the proposed TNPL project, they proceeded to purchase punja lands in those very villages. All the lands were purchased from two common vendors, namely, Mamundi and Karuppan. The 1 st and 6 th Petitioners are stated to have purchased 50 cents each, while the remaining Petitioners acquired approximately 25 cents each. 5. The following table sets out the particulars of each Petitioner, including the writ petition number, extent of land purchased, date of purchase, survey number, the village in which the land is situated, and the name of the vendor:- S. No Name of the petitioner and W.P.No. Extent and survey No./ Date of purchase Village in which land situated (S.F.No.) Vendor's Name 1. R.Vasantha WP(MD)No.15607/2016 50 cents 03.06.2013 Periyapatti North 523/3, 523/1B N.Mamundi 2. N.Palanichamy WP(MD)No.15608/2016 25Cents 03.06.2013 Mondipatti 7/6 & 7/7 N.Mamundi 3. A.Subramanian WP(MD)No.15609/2016 25 Cents 05.06.2013 Mondipatti 303/3 K aruppan 4. C.Anandan WP(MD)No.15610/2016 26 Cents 05.06.2013 Periyapatti North 303/3 Karuppan 5. A.Vincent Amirtharaj WP(MD)No.15611/2016 25 Cents 05.06.2013 Mondipatti 301/10 Karuppan 6. A.Balasubramanian WP(MD)No.15612/2016 51 Cents 06.06.2013 Periyapatti North 522/1 N.Mamundi 6. A perusal of the above table would reveal that all the petitioners hail from neighbouring localities and had purchased the lands in June 2013 - barely a month after the policy decision was announced in the Legislative Assembly. The lands so purchased were punja lands, and no meaningful cultivation could have been undertaken thereafter. A perusal of the above table would reveal that all the petitioners hail from neighbouring localities and had purchased the lands in June 2013 - barely a month after the policy decision was announced in the Legislative Assembly. The lands so purchased were punja lands, and no meaningful cultivation could have been undertaken thereafter. Notably, all purchases were made from the same two vendors. It is also admitted that the petitioners are not agriculturists by occupation. The sole motive behind the purchase appears to be to fraudulently claim employment in a public sector company under the category of land losers. Such conduct amounts to a clear abuse of a welfare policy that is intended to rehabilitate genuine agriculturists who lose both their land and their livelihood. This Court cannot countenance any attempt to subvert such a scheme through artificial claims based on orchestrated transactions. 7. When the Petitioners submitted their claims to the 3 rd Respondent, the 4 th Respondent, by the impugned letter dated 04.04.2016, rejected their representation and furnished the following response:- “Please refer to your representation cited under reference (1) and the order passed by the Hon’ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court cited under reference (2). With respect to the order cited under reference (2), you are informed that the land owner should have been in possession of the acquired land for one year prior to 01.01.2013, for being eligible for employment under the land given category at TNPL Unit - II. However, you have purchased the land through sale deed after 01.01.2013, which is subsequent to the eligibility cut off date. The proposal for establishing TNPL Unit-II in Manapparai Taluk, Trichy District, was announced in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly on 07.05.2013. The preparatory work for this proposed project started during the end of 2012 itself, since TNPL officials as well as the Revenue officials visited the proposed land. This has given an idea to the people in and around Manapparai Taluk about the proposed project much before the official announcement. Consequently many people have started to buy and sell the land in and around Manapparai Taluk including those land acquired for TNPL, with an objective to get employment in TNPL as well as to develop the land into residential plots and to sell it at a higher cost in future. Consequently many people have started to buy and sell the land in and around Manapparai Taluk including those land acquired for TNPL, with an objective to get employment in TNPL as well as to develop the land into residential plots and to sell it at a higher cost in future. In order to provide employment to the real land owners or to their legal heirs whose only major source of sustenance was the land acquired, TNPL has fixed 01.01.2013 as the cut off date for reckoning for ascertaining the ownership and for eligibility for employment under the land given category. Since, you do not fulfill the eligibility criteria, for employment, your claim for employment under land given category cannot be considered. It is hereby clarified that this reply is sent without prejudice to all our legal rights.” 8. In the course of arguments, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the fixation of a cut-off date by the requiring body, TNPL, was without statutory sanction, as it was neither the acquiring authority nor empowered under the 2013 Act to determine eligibility. Reliance was also placed on the doctrine of legitimate expectation said to have arisen from assurances during Peace Committee meetings. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents argued that the employment scheme was only a facilitative concession and not a statutory obligation, and that the criteria fixed - including the ownership of land as on 01.01.2013 - were reasonable and applied uniformly to similarly situated applicants. 9. When the authorities seek to extend ameliorative measures by way of rehabilitation to land losers under the 2013 Act, they are well within their rights to prescribe a cut-off date for recognizing land ownership, in order to determine eligibility for such benefits. In the present case, the fixation of 01.01.2013 as the cut-off date is justified, as it takes into account the formal announcement made in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and the fact that preparatory steps for land acquisition had already commenced by the end of 2012. No exception can be taken to the fixation of such a date, as it bears a clear and rational nexus to the objective of preventing speculative purchases and ensuring that only genuine land losers are compensated. No exception can be taken to the fixation of such a date, as it bears a clear and rational nexus to the objective of preventing speculative purchases and ensuring that only genuine land losers are compensated. The Petitioners, having purchased the land in mid-2013 with prior knowledge of the proposed project, not being agriculturists of the village, and having made the investment solely with the aim of securing public employment, cannot now be permitted to claim entitlement under the land loser category. Nor can they validly challenge the cut-off date, which is intrinsically linked to the purpose and integrity of the rehabilitation scheme. 10. It is not as though such welfare measures were introduced only after the enactment of the 2013 Act. Even under the earlier Land Acquisition Act of 1894, as well as the Tamil Nadu State Act of 1978 relating to acquisitions for Harijan welfare purposes, priority was extended to land losers, and employment was offered to genuine claimants who had been deprived of their land. This Court has, on several occasions, entertained writ petitions in that context and has taken care to identify and exclude those who sought to misuse such schemes. In doing so, this Court has exposed fraudulent claimants who attempted to take undue advantage of welfare policies and has rightly denied them relief. 11. Justice S.M. Subramaniam J ., while dealing with a case of A. Parthasarathy Vs. District Collector, Namakkal by his order dated 1.12.2021 (W.P. No. 22587 of 2011) has held as follows:- “3. On enquiry, the respondents found that some fraud had been committed for the purpose of obtaining Priority Certificate. For getting public employments, the said Priority Certificate issued was cancelled by the first respondent / District Collector. The writ petitioner filed W.P.No.17572 of 2009, challenging the cancellation order cancelling the Priority Certificate. The writ petition was dismissed on 06.11.2009 and W.A.No.1876 of 2009 was filed and the writ appeal was remanded back for fresh hearing on the ground that the petitioner was not provided with an opportunity or show cause notice. Thus, the first respondent issued notice to the writ petitioner and other persons to appear for an enquiry and an enquiry was conducted on 18.07.2011. After conducting enquiry, the first respondent/District Collector passed the impugned order in proceedings dated 20.09.2011, cancelling the Priority Certificate. 4. Thus, the first respondent issued notice to the writ petitioner and other persons to appear for an enquiry and an enquiry was conducted on 18.07.2011. After conducting enquiry, the first respondent/District Collector passed the impugned order in proceedings dated 20.09.2011, cancelling the Priority Certificate. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the petitioner along with 10 others purchased the land and the sale deed was properly executed. Based on the acquisition proceedings, the Priority Certificate for employment was issued and there was no infirmity. Thus, the writ petition is to be considered. 5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents objected the contentions raised by the petitioner by stating that during the year 2009, it was brought to the notice of the District Administration that several persons have obtained postings based on priority certificates issued by the Revenue officials against the principles enunciated in G.O.Ms.188, Personal and Administrative Reforms Department dated 28.12.1976 and G.O.Ms.324, Revenue Department, dated 18.03.1986. There were complaints from many unemployed graduates and representations also submitted by the public about the illegal activities, securing public employment by obtaining priority certificate in a fraudulent manner. 6. The Government acquires land for public purpose, after observing statutory formalities. Thus, the preferential treatment in the matter of employment is granted to the members of the family, whose lands have been acquired for Government purposes. In respect of the priority certificate obtained by the petitioner and other persons, who have involved in such illegal activities, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal, was requested to send factual reports on the substance of the allegations raised. According to the report, (i) 27 persons had obtained 'Priority Certificate' from the Special Tahsildar (ADW) and 11 persons got this 'Certificate' from the Tahsildar, Namakkal as if they lost their substance of income due to Land Acquisition process, but the reality is different, (ii) A group of persons from urban / Rural areas have schematically conspired a novel idea that they may be benefited in getting employment by virtue of the government orders referred to, if their lands were acquired. The Revenue Divisional Officers have sent detailed reports after detailed enquiries that the aforesaid individuals have got means of sustenance apart from the lands parted which is in meager extent for acquisition, the Priority Certificates issued to the 38 persons, who were involved were cancelled by the authority in proceedings dated 10.08.2009. The writ petitioner is also one among the 38 persons, who purposely purchased a piece of 20 cents of land in S.No.264A/1 of N.Pudupatty Village, Namakkal Taluk having registered to area of 1.20 acres along with 5 others jointly and a document to that effect was also executed in Doc.No.1718/2007, dated 22.05.2007. All the said 6 persons have received the compensation awarded by the Special Tahsildar (ADW), Namakkal. 7. The respondents have stated that the decision was taken only after conducting a detailed enquiry by the authorities and on receipt of report from the Revenue Divisional officers. Opportunity was granted to the writ petitioner to appear for the enquiry on 18.07.2011 and the petitioner also appeared and recorded his written statement and the said written statement was taken into consideration by the respondents before passing final orders. 8. It is contended that the order impugned is a speaking order and the entire facts and circumstances are narrated in the order impugned itself. 9. The respondents state that the object of giving priority certificates to give preference in Government Services in respect of persons whose lands were acquired for Government purposes and those who have no other sources of income except the land acquired. But, in this case, the writ petitioner jointly purchased an extent of 1.20 acres of land along with 5 others in N.Pudupatty Village and a document to that effect was also executed in Doc.No.1718/2007, dated 22.05.2007. The extent of 0.20 acres of land belonging to the writ petitioner was also involved among the total acquisition. He got job as Secondary Grade Assistant in the Panchayat Union Primary School, Pallipalayam, by virtue of fraudulent certificate. He suppressed this fact and managed to get the Priority certificate as if he has been deprived of the income from the land to acquired. The writ petitioner was not depending on the acquired land for his livelihood. It is clear that, he has purchased the land with ulterior motive. 10. He suppressed this fact and managed to get the Priority certificate as if he has been deprived of the income from the land to acquired. The writ petitioner was not depending on the acquired land for his livelihood. It is clear that, he has purchased the land with ulterior motive. 10. When the Government acquires lands for public purpose, they do so after observing statutory formalities and take possession of the lands so acquired by awarding compensation to the land owners. In order to alleviate the mitigation of these displaced persons, the government had thought it fit to give preferential treatment in the matter of Employment through Employment exchange, and passed order in G.O.Ms.188 Personal and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 28.12.1976 that “Members of the family whose lands have been acquired for government purposes as well as the projects of the public sector undertakings subject to the condition that preference should be given to those who are dependent for their livelihood primarily or wholly on the lands acquired and from among them to members of the Schedule Castes and Schedule tribes who may be eligible for employment.” 11. The Writ petitioner got job as Secondary Grade Assistant in the Panchayat Union Primary School, Pallipalayam, by virtue of fraudulent certificate. He suppressed this fact and managed to get the Priority certificate as if he has been deprived of the income from the land to acquired. So the impugned order clearly states that the acquired land was not a major source of substance of the family and hence, the priority certificate was cancelled. 12. The writ petitioner along with 5 others had purchased the land on 22.05.2007 and given their option to Adi Dravidar Welfare Department on 16.06.2007 for acquisition of land for House site pattas. The Adi Dravidar Welfare Department was completed the acquisition process on 29.08.2007. As per government order only to those whose lands have been acquired for government purpose when they primarily or wholly depended on such lands for their livelihood are only eligible for getting priority certificate. The writ petitioner was not primarily or wholly depending in the above land for his livelihood. As per government order only to those whose lands have been acquired for government purpose when they primarily or wholly depended on such lands for their livelihood are only eligible for getting priority certificate. The writ petitioner was not primarily or wholly depending in the above land for his livelihood. The said G.O. Make it clear that for every land acquired the land owner is not entitled for priority certificate and it clearly states that “preference should be given to those who are dependent for their livelihood primarily or wholly on the lands acquired” 13. The object of giving priority certificate to give preference in Government services in respect of persons whose lands were acquired for Government purposes and those who have no other sources of income except the land acquired. But, in this case the writ petitioner jointly purchased an extent of 1.20 acres of land along with 5 others in N.Pudupatty village and a document to that effect was also executed in Doc.No.1718/2007, dated 22.05.2007. All the said 6 persons have received the compensation awarded by the Special Tahsildar (ADW), Namakkal. The extent of 0.20 cents of land belonging to the writ petitioner was also involved among the total acquisition. 14. The Writ petitioner got job as Secondary Grade Assistant in the Panchayat Union Primary School, Pallipalayam, by virtue of fraudulent certificate. He suppressed this fact and managed to get the Priority certificate as if he has been deprived of the income from the land to acquired. The writ petitioner was not depending on the acquired land for his livelihood. The vital fact was suppressed by him while getting the priority certificate. 15. Elaborate enquiry which were made about the 6 persons who have got the priority certificates improperly reveals that the said certificates were obtained with a malafide intention to get Government jobs with their planned activity which was proved beyond reasonable doubt and there was “meeting of minds”. 16. Considering the facts and circumstances as well as the findings in the enquiry by the authorities competent, this Court is of the opinion that schematically a fraud had been committed for the purpose of getting employment by the petitioner along with other unemployed graduates, who have sufficient means for their livelihood. 17. 16. Considering the facts and circumstances as well as the findings in the enquiry by the authorities competent, this Court is of the opinion that schematically a fraud had been committed for the purpose of getting employment by the petitioner along with other unemployed graduates, who have sufficient means for their livelihood. 17. In the event of allowing such fraudulent activities in the matter of public appointments, no doubt, the deserving and genuine candidates, who are longing for public employment are deprived. Equal opportunity in public employment is the constitutional mandate. All appointments are to be made strictly in accordance with the rules and regulations. Priority for public employment on the ground of land acquisition itself is a concession. In the event of abuse of such concession by way of fraudulent means, then the opportunity for the rightful eligible persons are denied and thus, such fraudulent and illegal activities, if found in public appointments, serious actions are undoubtedly warranted. In the event of providing such a concession on the basis of land acquisition to a larger extent and many number of such people are appointed on the basis of the priority certificate, this Court is of the considered opinion that the rule of reservation will also be affected and the meritorious candidates are also deprived of their opportunity to secure public employment. At the outset, such backdoor appointments can never be approved by the Courts. The authorities are expected to be vigilant and in the present case, actions were taken swiftly and an enquiry was conducted and based on the enquiry report, the authorities found that some few unemployed graduates joined together and schematically executed a sale deed after initiation of acquisition proceedings and thereafter, obtained Priority Certificate for securing employment. When these factors were raised by way of complaint by other unemployed graduates and public, further enquiry was conducted and an opportunity was provided to the petitioner, who in turn, availed the said opportunity and thereafter, a decision is taken and an elaborate order has been passed, which is in consonance with the provisions of the Statute and Rules. 18. Thus, this Court do not find any infirmity or perversity in respect of the order impugned. Consequently, the writ petition is devoid of merits and stands dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.” 12. 18. Thus, this Court do not find any infirmity or perversity in respect of the order impugned. Consequently, the writ petition is devoid of merits and stands dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.” 12. The well-reasoned findings of the learned Judge in rejecting the claims of similarly placed fraudulent petitioners would squarely apply to the present case as well. There is no justification to interfere with the cut-off date prescribed by Respondents 3 and 4, or with the consequential rejection of the Petitioners’ claims. The present batch of writ petitions is nothing but a clear abuse of the process of this Court. Although this Court could have directed initiation of appropriate proceedings to enquire into the fraudulent conduct of the Petitioners, in view of the lapse of more than nine years since the filing of these writ petitions, it refrains from doing so. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions will stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.