33. Further, it is evident from the order of the 1 st respondent that not only the assignment in favour of the assignee was held bad, as the land, registered as ‘Held Over’ in the ‘A’ register cannot be assigned, the further order of the 1 st respondent that the testimony of the Village Administrative Officer that the assignee was not a resident of Melchettipattu and is residing away from the said village has not been put in issue by the assignee. In fact, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the assignee himself has stated that he is not residing in Melchettipattu Village, where the land is situate, but is residing in a village adjacent and which is about 4 Kms., from the said Melchettipattu Village. It is pertinent to point out that as per the Revenue Standing Order, assignment of land in a village is impermissible to be assigned in favour of a person, who is not a resident of the said village. Further, the said lands, which had already been assigned way back in the year 1931 and subsequently after a passage of almost 50 years, the same having been purchased by the father of the purchasers, the said assignment having not disturbed in a manner known to law, the wrong classification of the lands by the revenue cannot be put against the father of the purchasers, who has purchased the lands from a person of depressed class for valuable consideration. Therefore, rightly, as held by the 1 st respondent, the assignment granted in favour of the assignee, who is the petitioner in W.P. No.14418/10 is wholly unsustainable and the order of cancellation passed by the 1st respondent is just and reasonable and based on sound reasoning and the same does not warrant any interference.
