Judgment :- 1. These Writ Petitions have been filed, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, forbearing the second respondent from proceeding with the enquiry, pursuant to the summons, dated 29.08.2007, vide his proceedings in 05/30546/07. 2. With consent of the parties, the Writ Petitions are taken up for final disposal. Since both the Writ Petitions involve a similar issue, they are being disposed in common. 3. The facts are as follows : 1. One N.Sankaranarayana Sarma originally owned the property bearing Door No.57, Habibullah Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-17, comprised in Old Town Survey No.6889, New Town Survey No.8064, Block No.107, Mambalam Guindy Taluk, Chennai District, measuring 2 grounds and 1388 sq.ft., hereinafter referred to as "the subject property". The said Sankaranarayana Sarma settled the subject property in the name of his only son Neelakanta Sarma by virtue of a Deed of Settlement, dated 20.10.1950, registered as Document No.771/1950, retaining life interest with him, since he and his wife were settled in Malaysia and his son Neelakanta Sarma, who is settled in India. The said Sankaranarayana Sarma, first settlor, and his son Neelakanta Sarma, second settlor, have again jointly executed a Deed of Settlement, dated 210. 1951, registered as Document No.790/1950, in and by which they settled the subject property in favour of the grandsons of the first settlor and sons of the second settlor, namely, (1) Sankaranarayana Sarma @ Chittibabu and (2) Janakiraman @ Haribabu and any other issues that may be born to the said Neelakanta Sarma, subsequent to the settlement to be taken by them absolutely after the life time of the settlors. Seetharama Sarma @ Raja was born to Neelakanta Sarma subsequent to the above Deed of Settlement, dated 210. 1951. Sankaranarayana Sarma, original owner and first settlor, died on 012. 1956 and after his death, the subject property absolutely devolved on his son Neelakanta Sarma and his sons Sankaranarayana Sarma, Janakiraman and Seetharama Sarma, who are the beneficiaries under the above deeds of settlement, and they divided the subject property with a common pathway, to give access to the rear portions and sold the same to various persons including the petitioners, who are the tenants in occupation of the subject property. 3. 2. 3. 2. The third respondent and his vendors are fully aware of the land and building purchased and possessed by the petitioners and others as owners and that the petitioners have been paying property tax, E.B.charges, Water and Sewerage charges only in their names and that they have also obtained patta from the Taluk Office even in the years 1982 and 1990 and are in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same ever since the date of purchase. 3. 3. That being so, some of the original owners, who had already sold the entire subject property to the petitioners and others, divesting their title, again created void and bogus sale deeds in favour of the vendors of the third respondent and they, in turn, created bogus sale deed in favour of the third respondent. Thereafter, the vendors of the third respondent and the third respondent, with the aid of fabricated sale deeds in respect of the subject property, filed vexatious and false civil suits and other connected proceedings by filing false affidavits. 3. 4. The sale deeds in favour of the petitioners for the major portion of the subject property prevail over the later fabricated void sale deeds, alleged to have been executed for the same property in the year 1990 in favour of the third respondents vendors and the third respondent. Therefore, the vendors have no saleable or transferrable right to transfer the same to the third respondent. 5. At that stage, the petitioners received the impugned summons, dated 29.08.2007, from the second respondent. Hence, these Writ Petitions, at the instance of the petitioners. .4. A counter has been filed by the respondents 1 and 2, stating that the notices issued to the petitioners are in connection with the cancellation of pattas issued in their favour; one Inderchand Nahar has filed a petition, dated 02.07.2007, before the District Revenue Officer, for cancellation of patta issued to Muthukumar, as he is having valid documents for the entire extent of the land; verification of the Taluk Sub-Division file shows that patta was issued to M. Muthukumar, based on the documents produced by him for the property in T.S.No.8064/2 to an extent of 840 sq.ft. and T.S.No.8064/4 to an extent of 1564 sq.ft; hence, summons was issued to Muthukumar to appear for enquiry before the District Revenue Officer along with the documents available with him; the petitioners, instead of appearing for the enquiry, have filed these Writ Petitions and obtained interim stay; since the Tahsildar has ordered the sub-division, he is not competent to admit any appeal petition in that regard. Revenue Standing Order 31 contemplates the rules for transfer of registry of holdings and the vesting of powers with the Tahsildar, Revenue Divisional Officer and District Revenue Officers; under the Revenue Standing Order 31 (8) (A), against the orders of Tahsildar, the affected person may file an appeal to the Divisional Officer and a revision to the District Revenue Officer and a further revision to the Commissioner of Land Administration within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order of District Revenue Officer and the order of the Commissioner of Land Administration is final; since there is no Revenue Divisional Officer in Chennai District Revenue Unit, District Revenue Officer is the appellate/revisional authority to receive appeal from the affected person; hence, the contention put forth by the writ petitioners that the Tahsildar is the competent authority to issue notice for cancellation of patta is not correct and the same is against the Revenue Standing Orders; based on an appeal petition, dated 02.07.2007, filed by the third respondent, summons was issued to the petitioners to appear for enquiry on 14.09.2007, on which date, counsel for the petitioners appeared for enquiry and sought four weeks time to produce the documents; hence, the enquiry was not conducted on that day and, instead, posted to 110. 2007, as sought for by the counsel; even before attending the enquiry posted on 110. 2007, as sought for by the counsel; even before attending the enquiry posted on 110. 2007, the petitioners have filed these Writ Petitions, after getting adjournment at the enquiry; the averments regarding the documents, ownership and civil suits can be contested by the petitioners before the enquiry, to be conducted by the second respondent; only summons has been issued to the petitioners for enquiry and no final orders passed; necessary opportunity has been given to the petitioners to appear for enquiry, but, without availing the opportunity to put forth their contentions, they have filed these writ petitions, which are not maintainable, as they have not exhausted the remedies available under the Revenue Standing Orders; in view of the interim order granted by this Court, the second respondent has been precluded from discharging his duties; hence, these Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed, as not maintainable, and the interim order is to be vacated. 5. The third respondent has also filed a counter on similar lines with that of the respondents 1 and 2. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the records and also given due consideration to the relevant rules on the subject. 7. In this case, the property bearing Door No.57, Habibullah Road, T.Nagar, Chennai17, comprised in Old Town Survey No.6889, New Town Survey No.8064, Block No.107, Mambalam Guindy Taluk, Chennai District, measuring 2 grounds and 1388 sq.ft. is the subject matter for issuance of patta. .8. The subject property has been traced from one N. Sankaranarayana Sarma and he settled the property in the name of his son Neelakanta Sarma by a registered settlement deed, dated 210. 1950, since he and his wife were settled in Malaysia and his son Neelakanta Sarma is settled in India. The said Sankaranarayana Sarma settled the subject property in favour of his grandsons and sons of the second settlor, namely, (1) Sankaranarayana Sarma @ Chittibabu and (2) Janakiraman @ Haribabu and any other issues that may be born to the said Neelakanta Sarma, subsequent to the settlement taken by them absolutely. Thereafter, Seetharama Sarma @ Raja was born to Neelakanta Sarma subsequent to the Deed of Settlement, dated 210. 1951. Therefore, they became the beneficiaries under the above settlement. They divided and subdivided the property under which a portion of 1326 sq.ft. Thereafter, Seetharama Sarma @ Raja was born to Neelakanta Sarma subsequent to the Deed of Settlement, dated 210. 1951. Therefore, they became the beneficiaries under the above settlement. They divided and subdivided the property under which a portion of 1326 sq.ft. was sold to one S.Parvathi, wife of K.Subbiah, by a sale deed, dated 112. 1979, and a patta in the name of Parvathi was issued by the proceedings dated 28.04.1982. It is seen that the further sub-divided properties were sold to various persons, viz., 840 sq.ft. to M. Muthukumar; 700 sq.ft.to M. Gunaseeli; 200 sq.ft. to Chandira Ammal; 756 sq.ft. to T.Paramasivam and 1200 sq.ft. to M. Dhanammal, by various registered sale deeds. It is claimed by the petitioners that the third respondent is aware of the land and building purchased and possessed by them and others. However, one Neelakanta Sarma, one Sankaranarayana Sarma @ Chittibabu and one Seetharama Sarma @ Raja had already sold the subject property to the petitioners by divesting their title and they again created a sale deed in favour of the vendors of the third respondent, based on which a suit in O.S.No.5773 of 2004 was filed. Further, sale deeds were executed on 14.03.2005 by V.Swarna Vanilarasu, V.Sharmila and V.Sujatha in favour of the third respondent. Swarna Vanilarasu and V.Sharmila filed O.S.No.3818 of 2004, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 03.01.2005. In I.A.No.19197 of 2004 in O.S.No.5773 of 2004, the third respondent obtained an interim order and it was vacated subsequently, against which a civil revision was filed in C.R.P.No.2093 of 2005. However, that revision was disposed of with a direction to maintain status quo and dispose of I.A.No.19197 of 2004 on merits and later the said I.A.was dismissed on merits. The third respondent filed a contempt petition against the petitioners herein and that was dismissed on 14.02.2006. Later, the suit O.S.No.5773 of 2004 was also dismissed as withdrawn on 012. 2006 so also O.S.No.2348 of 2007 on 28.06.2007. The transfer of property in favour of the third respondent has been questioned by the parties and, in the meanwhile, the third respondent purchased a portion of the property from one N. Dhanammal. When that be so, on 11.09.2007, the petitioners received the impugned summons on 29.08.2007 from the second respondent to attend an enquiry for cancellation of patta issued in favour of the petitioners, which summons is challenged in these Writ Petitions. .9. When that be so, on 11.09.2007, the petitioners received the impugned summons on 29.08.2007 from the second respondent to attend an enquiry for cancellation of patta issued in favour of the petitioners, which summons is challenged in these Writ Petitions. .9. Respondents 1 and 2 in their counter, raised a preliminary question that the Writ Petition is not maintainable, as it is only a notice for enquiry. It is also stated in the counter that the petitioners have filed these Writ Petitions against the notice issued to them in connection with the cancellation of patta, regarding the subject property. The third respondent has filed a petition before the District Revenue Officer for cancellation of patta, issued in favour of the petitioners, claiming that he is having valid documents for the said property. Therefore, the District Revenue Officer issued the impugned summons to the writ petitioners to produce the documents available with them relating to the subject property for verification, against which the present Writ Petitions have been filed, instead of facing the enquiry. 10. From a reading of the impugned order, dated 29.08.2007, it is seen that it is only a notice to conduct enquiry regarding cancellation of patta and the petitioners have been asked to appear for the said enquiry. The patta granted in favour of the petitioners has already been cancelled based on certain documents, against which, a petition has been made to the District Revenue Officer and the same is pending, for conducting proper enquiry in a manner known to law. The petitioners, instead of facing the enquiry, have rushed to this Court, questioning the enquiry proceedings on the ground that the District Revenue Officer is not the competent authority to proceed with the enquiry. 11. The scope of interference of this Court with the proceedings at the stage of enquiry is very limited. There are a catena of decisions, restricting the power of this Court to interfere in the matters at the stage of enquiry proceedings. The only question which remains for consideration is, whether the District Revenue Officer is competent to issue the impugned notices ? 12. No doubt, the Tahsildar has granted patta to the petitioner on 17.02.1982, based on the documents produced by her on 16.09.1981. Subsequently, the third respondent filed an application to cancel the said patta. The only question which remains for consideration is, whether the District Revenue Officer is competent to issue the impugned notices ? 12. No doubt, the Tahsildar has granted patta to the petitioner on 17.02.1982, based on the documents produced by her on 16.09.1981. Subsequently, the third respondent filed an application to cancel the said patta. This Court is not inclined to go into the rival submissions made by the parties and it is for the competent authority to decide the issue. .13. It transpires that the Tahsildar has ordered sub-division of the subject property and issued patta in favour of the petitioners and against the granting of patta, the third respondent filed a petition to cancel the same. Since the Tahsildar has ordered subdivision of the subject property, he is not competent to deal with the appeal/revision filed by the third respondent. Revenue Standing Order 31 contemplates the rules for transfer of registry of holdings and the vesting of powers with Tahsildar, Revenue Divisional Officer and District Revenue Officer. In addition, under Standing Order 31 (8), against the orders of the Tahsildar, the affected person may file an appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer or the Collector. Since there is no Revenue Divisional Officer in Chennai District Revenue Unit, the District Revenue Officer is the appellate authority to receive the appeal from the affected person. Therefore, the District Revenue Officer has issued the summons of enquiry to the petitioners. Under the circumstances, the contention of the petitioners that the District Revenue Officer is not competent to proceed with the enquiry is not in consonance with the rules made under the Revenue Standing Orders. 14. An argument was advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that under Sections 10, 12 and 13 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1986, the Tahsildar is the competent authority to proceed with the enquiry and not the District Revenue Officer. 15. In this connection, it is to be stated that the third respondent, being aggrieved over the order of the Tahsildar in granting patta to the petitioners, filed a petition before the second respondent, namely, District Revenue Officer, and that petition was not for modification of entries in the patta pass book, as contemplated under Section 10, but, was for cancellation of patta. A combined reading of Sections 12 and 13 would make it clear that any person aggrieved by an order made by the Tahsildar under the Act may, within such period as may be prescribed, appeal to such authority as may be prescribed, namely, the District Revenue Officer and definitely not the Tahsildar again. Therefore, either under the Revenue Standing Orders or under the Patta Pass Book Act, the appropriate authority to decide against the order of the Tahsildar is the District Revenue Officer as far as Chennai District is concerned. So, the above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners falls to the ground. 116. In the above facts and circumstances and in view of a catena of rulings of this Court and also the Supreme Court that a writ against the notice of enquiry does not lie, this Court is not inclined to delve into the merits and demerits of the case at this stage. It is open for the petitioners to appear for the enquiry and contest the matter, raising all the points available to them. Therefore, these Writ Petitions deserve no consideration and they are, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2007 in both the Writ Petitions are closed.