Assigned land claims require reliable records; withheld registers and no cancellation proceedings can defeat deletion from an auction sale.

A claim that auctioned land is assigned land subject to a non-alienation condition must be supported by reliable assignment records. Here, the State's failure to produce earlier assignment registers, together with altered revenue entries and the absence of cancellation or resumption proceedings, justified an adverse inference against its claim. The text also notes that the auction purchaser sought and obtained directions for survey, demarcation and preparation of a field measurement sketch, with jungle clearance to be completed at the purchaser's expense before the survey was carried out.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the extent of Ac.239.85 cents claimed by the State could be deleted from the auction sale in favour of the auction purchaser on the plea that the lands were assigned lands hit by the prohibition on alienation. (ii) Whether the auction purchaser was entitled to a direction for survey, demarcation and preparation of field measurement sketch of the purchased lands.

Issue (i): Whether the extent of Ac.239.85 cents claimed by the State could be deleted from the auction sale in favour of the auction purchaser on the plea that the lands were assigned lands hit by the prohibition on alienation.

Analysis: The State failed to produce the assignment registers for the period prior to 18-6-1954, despite specific directions. The material on record indicated that the revenue entries had been altered and that the same pattadars were shown again in later assignment records, creating serious doubt about the State's version that the lands were first assigned only from 1969 onwards. The Court drew an adverse inference from the non-production of the earlier records and held that the State had not established that the lands were assigned for the first time after the introduction of the non-alienation condition. The Court also noted that no cancellation or resumption proceedings had been initiated and that a substantial portion had already been alienated to another entity without cancellation.

Conclusion: The State's claim to delete the said extent from the auction sale was rejected, and the application filed by the State was dismissed.

Issue (ii): Whether the auction purchaser was entitled to a direction for survey, demarcation and preparation of field measurement sketch of the purchased lands.

Analysis: The land was stated to be covered by trees, shrubs and bush growth, requiring jungle clearance before survey. In view of the need for demarcation and the limited practical objections raised, the Court directed the survey authorities to intimate the expenses for jungle clearance and survey, upon payment of which the authorities were required to complete the survey within the stipulated time and furnish the report to the auction purchaser.

Conclusion: The auction purchaser was granted the relief of survey and demarcation of the purchased lands.

Final Conclusion: The auction purchaser succeeded on the substantive relief sought, while the State's attempt to set aside the sale failed; consequential directions were issued for completion of survey and demarcation.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim that land is an assigned land subject to a non-alienation condition must be proved by reliable records, and where the State withholds the relevant assignment records and fails to show cancellation or resumption, an adverse inference may be drawn and the sale cannot be invalidated on that basis.

---