Judgment :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent in ref.Na.Ka.No.15332/97 dated 02.08.1999 and quash the same. Heard Mr. T. Dhanya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.18748 and 18604 of 1999 and Mr. C.V. Vijayakumar learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.18481 of 1999, Mr. A. Arumugam learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents in all the writ petitions and perused the records. 2. The short point that arises for consideration in these three writ petitions are whether the impugned order suffers from vice or any irregularities or whether it is passed opposed on the principles of natural justice. 3. The petitioner in W.P.No.18604 of 1999 Mrs. Parameswari was occupying the land in Survey No.175/2, in Thiruparankundram Village. The petitioners in W.P.No.18798 of 1999 P. Karmegam and 5 others were occupying the land in Survey No.175/3 in Thiruparankundram village in terms of A Register maintained in the said village. These Survey Numbers were classified as Road. Likewise the petitioners in W.P.No.18481 of 1999, S. Velu and two others were occupying Survey No.428 Part in Thiruparankundram Village which is classified as Nelaiyur Village Periyakulam Neeirpedippu (Catchment). 4. In all these cases the claim of the petitioners were that they were in occupation of Natham land for more than 4 decades and that they have applied to the Tahsildar for Patta for the said land. The Tahsildar after enquiry granted them Patta. Subsequently, when Mrs. Parameswari petitioner in W.P.No.18604 of 1999 applied for patta, a report was called for from the Tahsildar, Madurai South. He apparently reported that the earlier patta has been granted contrary to the rules. Taking the report as the basis, the District Revenue Officer, Madurai cancelled the pattas given to the petitioners herein. It is stated in the order that the Tahsildar has no power to grant Patta in respect of the lands occupied by the petitioners. 5. In the meanwhile, it is also brought to the notice that the said Parameswari has sold the land to somebody else. It is stated in the order that the Tahsildar has no power to grant Patta in respect of the lands occupied by the petitioners. 5. In the meanwhile, it is also brought to the notice that the said Parameswari has sold the land to somebody else. Be that as it may, the contention raised by the petitioners are three fold viz., .(a) In so far as they are occupying Nathan land they are eligible for patta; .(b) The Tahsildar who granted the patta had made enquiry and the same cannot be cancelled without notice to them; and .(c) The reasons given in the impugned order that the Tahsildar has no power is contrary to the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.1971, Revenue Department, dated 110. 1988, which specifically authorises the Special Tahsildar as the Authority to conduct enquiry. 6. In all these cases counter affidavits has been filed by the respondents. With reference to the Nathan land, the impugned order dated 02.08.1999, challenged in these writ petitions clearly gives the classification of the lands in S.No.175/2 and S.No.175/3 as Road and S.No.428 part as Nelaiyur Village Periyakulam Neeirpidippu (catchment). Therefore, the claim that it was a Nattam land cannot be accepted in the light of the stand taken by the respondents. 7. Once it is not a Nattam land then the procedure for grant of patta has to be regulated in terms of the Government Order in force. In the present case, the Tahsildar, Madurai South enquired the matter and found that there were irregularities in the grant of patta and the District Revenue Officer was satisfied with the said report and specifically cancelled the pattas granted in favour of the petitioners. When the District Revenue Officer mentions that the Tahsildar has no power to grant Patta, he is not making any general statement, he is only making a statement in terms of request of patta for the land which is occupied by the petitioner which are objectionable and no patta can be granted by any authority without reclassifying the lands. Unless the present classification of land is altered in the A Register of the village by appropriate means, the stand of the respondents that the Tahsildar has no power to grant patta regarding the land which are classified either as Road or Neerpidippu is valid. 8. Unless the present classification of land is altered in the A Register of the village by appropriate means, the stand of the respondents that the Tahsildar has no power to grant patta regarding the land which are classified either as Road or Neerpidippu is valid. 8. With reference to the alleged violation of the principles of Natural Justice it must be stated that in paragraph No.5 of the counter affidavit dated 04.06.2000, it is stated as follows: "5..... In the case of the petitioners who have engaged lawyer to plead their cases have not given any explanation in reply to this office notice. Though the petitioners have argued that the notice of enquiry has not been served on them, their allegations are not correct, since all other persons for whom such notice has been sent by post have given their objections or abstained from giving reply. Even if they have given objections, they were not accepted me in the case of others, since the land for which they possess patta is a Government poramboke land and they are not entitled to be given a patta. They have also deliberately attempting to sell their lands to others betraying the real position of the issue....." 9. In the light of the same, all the three contentions raised by the petitioners fail and the writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs.