Judgment :- K. SAMPATH, J. The above Writ Appeals have been filed against the common order of the learned single Judge in W.P. Nos. 6300 and 5735 of 1990. The Writ Petitions are filed for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the proceedings culminating in the order dated 14.3.1990 made in G.O.Ms. No. 453 on the file of the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Revenue Department, Madras-9 the first respondent herein affirming the common order dated 20.4.1976 and made in proceedings BR.RT. 293/SE on the file of the Commissioner of Land Revenue and Settlement of Estates, Board of Revenue, Madras-5, the-second respondent herein turn affirming the order dated 31.1.1975 made in proceedings R. Dis SR. 1 and 2/19-A/70 on the file of the Director of Survey and Settlements, Madras-5, the third respondent herein, quash the same and direct respondents 1 to 3 herein their men, agents or assignees to forbear interfering with the petitioners possession and enjoyment of holdings comprised in Salem District and Taluk in T.S. No. 113, Block No. 52 ward ‘H’ corresponding to old T.S. No. 2210 in Trichy Main Road, Gugai, Salem measuring about O. 62 cents all superstructures standing thereon, having Door Nos. 289/0, WI, Z, Z-1. Z-4, Z-8, Z-14, X, Z-12, PRS.U.V. V2, V3 and all other sheds except in accordance with law. 2. It is not necessary to elaborately deal with the circumstances leading to the filing of the Writ Appeals as we are disposing of the Writ Appeals on a short point. 3. The order of the Commissioner of Settlement was separately challenged by the appellants in both the Writ Appeals, the petitioner in W.P. Nos. 6300 of 1990 making a representation to the Government and requesting for personal hearing and consideration of the documents already filed by them before the Board of Revenue, while the petitioners in W.P. No. 5735 of 1990 challenged the order by a further revision to the Government. 4. The sum and substance of the grievance of the appellants is that, the Government disposed of the revisions without giving a personal hearing to the petitioners, though they had through their counsel prayed for a personal hearing and that thus there has been violation of principles of natural justice. 4. The sum and substance of the grievance of the appellants is that, the Government disposed of the revisions without giving a personal hearing to the petitioners, though they had through their counsel prayed for a personal hearing and that thus there has been violation of principles of natural justice. Dealing with this aspect regarding the personal hearing, the learned Judge in paragraph -13 of his order has observed as follows; “As regards the petitioner in W.F. No. 6300 of 1990, there is no substance in the contention that a personal hearing should have been granted and the failure to give the same has vitiated the order of the (government. There is no rule providing for a personal hearing of the revision petition before the (government. The representation made by the petitioner to the Government after the disposal of the Writ Petition referred to the documents already filed by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue and prayed for reference to the same at the time of the hearing. The petitioner did not refer to any other document in order to sustain its claim. Even in the earlier proceedings, it was found as a feet that the land was not used as a burial ground after 1867. In the present proceedings also the Director of Settlements has considered the question in detail and come to the same conclusion, which has been affirmed by the Commissioner of Settlements. Nothing has been placed before me to show that the factual conclusion is erroneous. In fact, the Assistant Settlement Officer rejected the claims for Patta on the technical ground that there was no order under Section 20-A of the Estate Lands Act, though on the facts he found against the user of the land as a burial ground. No Writ can be issued at the instance of the petitioner, who has failed to establish that the land continued to be a burial ground throughout.” 5. So far as the petitioners in the other Writ Petitions are concerned, they have not raised any such objection and it is seen from the order of the learned single Judge that they had argued only on the merits of the case and the learned single Judge rejected the contentions raised by them and dismissed the Writ Petition. 6. So far as the petitioners in the other Writ Petitions are concerned, they have not raised any such objection and it is seen from the order of the learned single Judge that they had argued only on the merits of the case and the learned single Judge rejected the contentions raised by them and dismissed the Writ Petition. 6. It is seen from the records that the counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 6300 of 1990 has on 26.12.1986 addressed a letter to the first respondent seeking a personal hearing before deciding the issue and if the hearing date was fixed, notice might be given sufficiently in advanced him so as to enable him to inform his clients and also to prepare the case for hearing. 7. The learned Single Judge has proceeded on the footing that the Rules had not provided for a personal hearing and that on the materials, the petitioners had not substantiated their case. It should be observed here that the matter has been pending decision for well over 30 years and the first respondent in our view ought to have afforded a proper opportunity to the parties to address arguments through their counsel or in person. Therefore, without going into the merits of the claim of the respective, parties, we set aside the decision of the learned single Judge allowing the WA. No. 604 of 1994 and remit the matter to the first, respondent for hearing afresh. This benefit of rehearing will avail to the petitioners in the other Writ Petition also. The Writ Appeals will stand allowed and the matter will stand remitted to the first respondent for disposal afresh. It is agreed by both the counsel that they will appear before the first respondent on 3.8.1999 at 1130 a.m. The first respondent will take up the matter on that date or on some other suitable data and-dispose of the same within three months. 8. It is made clear that we are not expressing any view on the merits of the case of the respective claimants. Consequently, C.M.P. No. 6559 and 13833 of 1994 are closed.