Judgment :- The above Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in Na.Ka.G.No.74892/97 dated 21.4.1997 on the file of the third respondent and quash the same. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition, the petitioner would submit that he has purchased the land measuring 50 cents comprised in R.S.No.849 of Ootacamund Town from the husband of the 5th respondent, one S.Rangappan under a registered sale deed 26.12.1964 and ever since he is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said piece of land having put up a small shed thereon; that the fourth respondent after observing all the formalities, by an order dated 21.6.l996 sub divided the extent purchased by him as R.S.No.849/3 in the presence of the petitioner, the fifth respondent, her husband, her son and also a neighbouring land owner. 3. The further case of the petitioner is that while so, the fifth respondent has issued a notice dated 17.1.1997 to the fourth respondent, marking copies to the petitioner, the second respondent and the Sub-Collector, Coonur, stating that she has purchased an extent of 1-4/8 acre out of a total extent of 3.27 acres in R.S.No.849 in Ootacamund Town under a registered sale deed dated 29.11.1967 and she has been in possession of the property having put up construction thereon and that the sub-division effected by the fourth respondent without notice and without making any spot verification in spite of her objections and hence is not at all binding on her and that she requires a copy of the order of sub-division so as to enable her to prefer necessary appeal before the concerned authorities; that the petitioner sent a reply dated 21.1.1997 to the fifth respondent marking copies to the second respondent and the Sub-Collector Coonoor. 4. The further case of the petitioner is that he has also filed a suit in O.S.No.63 of 1997 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Nilgiris at Ootacamund praying for a permanent injunction restraining the fifth respondent herein from in any manner interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the said property; that he has also obtained an order of interim injunction; that the said suit is pending. 5. 5. The further case of the petitioner is that on receipt of the said notice and reply by the parties, the second respondent sent a notice dated 19.2.1997 directing the parties to produce records; that the petitioner sent a letter dated 11.3.1997 to the second respondent, through his counsel informing that since the documents have already been filed before the Court in O.S.No.63 of 1997 and that he is not in a position to produce the documents called for by the second respondent at present and as soon as the suit is disposed of by the civil court, he will produce the said documents and that requested the second respondent to keep the matter in abeyance till then. 6. The further case of the petitioner is that in the meanwhile, the fifth respondent preferred an appeal before the Sub-Collector/Appellate Authority, Nilgiris against the order of the fourth respondent dated 21.6.1996 and the same is pending; that in the meanwhile, the third respondent without considering the above facts and without awaiting the result from the civil court which has already seized of the matter in O.S.No.63 of 1997, passed an order dated 21.4.1997, setting aside the order of the fourth respondent dated 21.6.1996, further directing the parties to approach the fourth respondent by making fresh application based on possession and enjoyment. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed a revision before the first respondent; that however, the first respondent has rejected the said revision on the ground that he has no statutory jurisdiction over the order passed by the third respondent. In such circumstances, the petitioner has come forward to file the above writ petition praying for the relief extracted supra. 7. In such circumstances, the petitioner has come forward to file the above writ petition praying for the relief extracted supra. 7. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent swearing on behalf of the respondents 1,2,3 and 4, besides generally denying the allegations and averments of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, he would further submit that the fourth respondent has effected sub-division of the land in question only on the basis of the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner; that the respondent has no knowledge regarding the suit filed in O.S.No.63 of 1997; that the allegations that the appeal preferred by the fifth respondent is pending before the Court of Sub-Collector, Coonur is false and no such appeal is pending; that on the basis of Inspection Report and based on the documents available, the third respondent has cancelled the order of the fourth respondent dated 21.6.1996; that as the appellate authority, the third respondent has power to cancel the orders passed by his subordinate, if found wrong; that in all respects, the order of the third respondent in cancelling the order of the fourth respondent is correct and based on merits. On such averments, he would pray for dismissal of the above writ petition. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents as well and the materials placed on record have also been perused. 9. On such averments, he would pray for dismissal of the above writ petition. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents as well and the materials placed on record have also been perused. 9. During arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the third respondent has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order, since the appeal preferred by the fifth respondent before the Sub-Collector, who is the competent authority and having jurisdiction to deal with the matter is pending before him, but the third respondent, without considering the above pendency of the appeal before the Sub-Collector and without awaiting for the result from the civil court which has already seized of the matter in O.S.No.63 of 1997, and without affording opportunity for the parties to be heard, has passed the impugned order dated 21.4.1997; that if the appeal has been dealt with by the regular Appellate Authority viz., the Sub-Collector concerned, the petitioner would not have lost the opportunity to file revision before the Revisional Authority, viz., the third respondent, and hence the conduct of the third respondent in dealing with the matter straightaway is without jurisdiction and is illegal and erroneous and therefore, he would pray to quash the said order. 10. In consideration of the facts pleaded, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, this Court is of the view that it is for the Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Revenue Officer to explain about their conduct as to why the Revenue Divisional Officer, before whom the regular appeal preferred, did not deal with the same and as to how the appeal got transformed to the District Revenue Officer and even on what basis the District Revenue Officer, dealt with the matter without affording an opportunity for the parties to be heard and without any communication to the parties concerned, as a result of which the petitioner having filed a revision before the Commissioner of Land Administration, got rejected for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Revenue Officer, the third respondent herein in a high handed manner without affording opportunity for the parties to be heard, becomes liable to be quashed and hence the following order: In result, (i) the above Writ Petition succeeds and the same is allowed; (ii) the order dated 21.4.1997 passed in Na.Ka.G.No.74892/97 by the third respondent is quashed; (iii) The Revenue Divisional Officer, who is the regular appellate authority is directed to deal with the appeal in the fitting manner with due opportunity for the parties to be heard and to pass an order on merits and in accordance with law expediting the same within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iv) however, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs;