Judgment :- D. Murugesan, J. This appeal is directed at the instance of Special Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement as against the Order in W.P.17082/2006 dated 14.07.2006 whereby the Writ Petition was allowed after quashing the order impugned in the writ petition. 2. The writ petition came to be filed on the ground that the respondent by name M. Arumugam and one Thiru. Srinivasan purchased an extent of 3.14 acres of land in Survey No.11(part), Block No.4, T.S.No.2(part) situate in No.65, Kolathur Village, Perambur-Purasawalkam Taluk, Chennai, from M/s. M.Subramani and S.Vasantha for a valuable consideration as per the registered sale deed dated 05.08.1981. In the year 1999, the Tahsildar, Perambur-Purasawalkam Taluk inspected the land and sent a report to the District Collector stating that the entire land is Inam Estate. As the respondent was in possession and enjoyment of the said land for more than 30 years, the lands were re-classified as Anatheenam, Eri Ulvoi. Hence on an application made by the respondent to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Tiruvannamalai, patta was granted 29.06.2000 for an extent of 2.1 ½ cents of the land. The said patta was sought to be cancelled by the appellant/Special Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement by order dated 21.04.2006 invoking suo moto power under Section 5(2) of the Tamil Nadu Regulations, Estates and Inam Abolition and Ryotwari Settlement Act, 1948. 3. The said Order of the Special Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement was questioned in the Writ Petition on two grounds namely that the Director of Survey and Settlement has no suo moto power under Section 5(2) of the Act to cancel the patta granted by the Assistant Settlement Officer and secondly, in any event show cause notice dated 21.09.2005 was issued by the The Special Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement calling upon the petitioner as to why the grant of patta should not be cancelled. The respondent was asked to submit his explanation within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the said show cause notice. The said show cause notice was received by the Respondent on 11.02.2006 and a reply was sent within 15 days i.e., on 20.02.2006. The respondent was asked to submit his explanation within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the said show cause notice. The said show cause notice was received by the Respondent on 11.02.2006 and a reply was sent within 15 days i.e., on 20.02.2006. Though the said reply was acknowledged on 22.02.2006, the explanation has not been considered and in fact the Special Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement has gone to the extent of denying the receipt of such reply. 4. The writ petition came to be dismissed following the judgment in "The Director of Survey and Settlement Vs. R. Ramadoss reported in 1992(2) LW 265 holding that the Director of Survey and Settlement has no suo moto power under Section 5(2), to revise the order of Settlement Officer. 5. The above order is questioned in this Writ Appeal by the state. 6. Mr. K. Balasubramanian, the learned Special Government Pleader has brought to our notice a judgment of a full bench of this court reported in 2007(4) CTC 538 wherein it has been held in The Special Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement Vs. M. Arumugam has suo moto power. When this Writ Appeal was taken into consideration earlier, in view of the subsequent judgment of this Court in M. Veeraswamy Vs. Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration in 1996 WLR 554 holding that such power is available for the Director of Survey and Settlement, the Writ Appeal was referred to a larger bench for consideration. Ultimately a full bench of this court in the judgment reported in 2007 (4) CTC 538 has held that the judgment in Ramadoss case did not lay out correct law. Consequently the judgment in Veeraswamy’s case was approved. Hence the learned Government Pleader submitted that in view of the above said full bench judgment, the reasoning of the learned single judge is unsustainable and accordingly the Writ Appeal should be allowed. 7. We have heard Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel on the above submission of the learned Special Government Pleader. The learned Senior Counsel has fairly submitted that he has no answer as the issue is covered by the full bench judgment. 8. 7. We have heard Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel on the above submission of the learned Special Government Pleader. The learned Senior Counsel has fairly submitted that he has no answer as the issue is covered by the full bench judgment. 8. However, the learned Senior Counsel would submit as the Writ Petition came to be disposed only on the ground of jurisdictional issue for the Director of Survey and Settlement to consider the grant of patta, suo moto and cancel it, issue as to the failure to consider the explanation was not considered. 9. We have carefully considered the above submissions. In so far as the power of the Director of Survey and Settlement to suo moto, consider and revise the grant of patta in exercise of power under Section 5(2) of the Act is concerned, the very issue has been decided by the full bench in the present Writ Appeal itself and therefore the challenge to the impugned order on the ground of want of jurisdiction has to be rejected. 10. In so far as the second submission asto the non-consideration of the explanation is concerned, paragraph 8(c) of the grounds in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the petitioner has specifically mentioned that the show cause notice dated 21.09.2005 was responded and the explanation was also received by the Director of Survey and Settlement on 22.02.2006. Placing reliance on the above, the learned Senior Counsel drew our attention to the order of the Director of Survey and Settlement dated 21.04.2006 wherein it is stated that though the show cause notice was served on the respondent on 11.02.2006, there was no explanation. Hence the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Director of Survey and Settlement did not consider the explanation and therefore the order questioned in the Writ Petition is liable to be set aside. 11. We have also heard on the above submission. A perusal of the grounds made in paragraph 8(c), as pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel would show that the explanation to the show cause notice was sent and the same was received on 22.02.2006 i.e, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said show cause notice and much before the impugned order was passed on 21.04.2006. However, the Special Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement has disputed even the receipt of such explanation thereby indicating that he did not consider the explanation at all. Once a show cause notice is issued, it is only reasonable for the Director of Survey and Settlement to advert to the objections filed by the grantee of patta before any order is passed. Moreover, before an adverse order is passed, it is incumbent on the part of the authority passing such order to call for an objection / explanation and if such objections/explanations are received, they must be considered. In view of the above, failure to consider the objections before passing the impugned order by which the patta granted in favour of the respondent dated 29.06.2000 is canceled after a period of more than 5 years. On this ground alone the order impugned in the petition is liable to be set aside. Accordingly the said order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Special Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement to pass fresh orders after considering the explanation dated 20.02.2006 received by him on 22.02.2006 and pass fresh orders in accordance with law within a period of three months after affording a personal hearing to the Respondent. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 12. The respondent is also directed to furnish a copy of the explanation dated 22.02.2006 to the Director of Survey and Settlement within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.