Judgment :- Heard Mr.M.Venkatachalapathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 & 2. 2.The writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned order of the third respondent dated 26. 1999, made in Na.Ka.No.204/99-A, and for a consequential direction forbearing the respondents from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties with an extent of 1.98 acres in S.No.203/1 and 0.90 acres in S.No.203/2 in Tharasuram Village, Kumbakonam Taluk, by the petitioners. 3.It is stated that the property situated in S.No.203/1 having an extent of 1.98 acres and S.No.203/2 with an extent of 0.90 acres at Tharasuram belongs to one G.Krishnamurthy who is the husband of the first petitioner and father of petitioners 2 to 6. The said Krishnamurthy died on 17. 1996 and the petitioners have succeeded to the estate of G.Krishnamurthy as his legal heirs and as such the petitioners are jointly enjoying the properties as co-owners. It is also stated that the lands in question were purchased by the petitioners father under a registered sale deed, dated 110. 1985, from one Ramamoorthy Iyer for valid consideration. The said Ramamoorthy Iyer had purchased the property from one Lakshmi Ammal wife of Shanmuga Nadar and his sons, under a registered sale deed, dated 33. 1971. The petitioners have further stated that the property in S.No.203/1 with an extent of 1.98 acres was a Minor Inam land in favour of Rama Naicken Water Pandal Charity and the grant is Dharmadhayam grant. The property was under the occupation of the said Shanmuga Nadar. 4.The property in the above mentioned Survey numbers were under the personal cultivation from 1950 as a lessee and the shanmuga Nadar has continued as a lessee till the year 1957. Thereafter, the said property was mortgaged in favour of the said Shanmuga Nadar, as he continued in possession as a mortgagee and subsequent to the said mortgage, Shanmuga Dadar had purchased the property in the year 1964 under the Document No.1312/1964 from one Dorai Ramanujam who had inherited the property from his mother. In such circumstances the Settlement Tahsildar (Statutory Enquiry) No.1, Thanjavur, initiated suo-moto enquiry under the provisions of Madras Minor Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, in respect of the land for granting of patta. In such circumstances the Settlement Tahsildar (Statutory Enquiry) No.1, Thanjavur, initiated suo-moto enquiry under the provisions of Madras Minor Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, in respect of the land for granting of patta. After consideration of the materials and the records available, the lands were assigned and the patta was granted in favour of the said Shanmuga Nadar from whom the petitioners father and the petitioners acquired had title to the property in question. In such circumstances, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned proceedings, dated 26. 1999, issued by the third respondent. 5.In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the land in R.S.No.203/1 of Dharasuram Village in Kumbakonam Taluk measuring an extent of 0.79.5 hectares is classified as dry land and the patta with regard to the said land stands in the name of G.Krishnamurthy Pillai. However, the land in R.S.No.203/2 of the same village measuring an extent of 0.36.0 hectares is classified as Tank Poramboke. According to the respondents, the petitioners have claimed that the Tank in R.S.No.203/2 of Dharasuram village is a private tank. The said claim of the petitioners was not accepted by the respondents as the Survey No.203/2 is classified as a Tank Porambokke in the records of the respondents and B memos have been issued to the petitioners for having encroached on the said lands. 6.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had also submitted that the Settlement Tahsildar (Statutory) Enquiries No.1, Thanjavur, has issued ryotwari patta in the name of Shanmugam Nadar only for S.No.203/1 and not for S.No.203/2. It has also been stated on behalf of the respondents that the land in question is not in continuous possession of the petitioners as claimed by them. Though the tank in Survey No.203/2 is not in use as a tank, as the land is not deep enough to store water, the petitioners had encroached upon the land by fencing it and therefore, B memos have been issued and the fine has been levied. Since the land is required for Government purposes for which it is set apart, the encroachment is liable to be removed. Since the land is required for Government purposes for which it is set apart, the encroachment is liable to be removed. 7.The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the impugned proceedings has been issued by the third respondent without issuing any notice to the petitioners and also without giving an opportunity of being heard. 8.In response to the said contention, the learned counsel for the respondents had fairly submitted that any action that would be initiated against the petitioners would be done only after giving them an opportunity of hearing. 9.On such submissions being made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties concerned, the impugned proceedings of the third respondent, dated 26. 1999, is set aside, directing the respondents to give the petitioners an opportunity of hearing, as and when they chose to initiate action against the petitioners, by issuing a notice as provided under law. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs.