Judgment :- This Writ Petition has been filed, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the proceedings of the third respondent in O.Mu.1628/2007/Aa.5, dated 13.03.2007, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to cancel the unification of the lands in R.S.No.381/2B2 and the consequent sub-divisions said to have been made, and to issue the computarised patta to the petitioner in respect of the lands purchased by him under a registered Sale Deed, dated 21.06.1991, covered by R.S.No.381/2B2. 2. The order under challenge has been passed by the third respondent, namely, Tahsildar, Tambaram Taluk, in and by which the request of the petitioner for transfer of patta in his name, in respect of Survey Nos.381/2B2 and 381, combined together in Survey Nos.381/1A2, 381/27, 381/26, 381/31, 381/32, 381/45 and sub-divided, was rejected. 3. According to the petitioner, the land in R.S.No.381/2B2 of Perungalathur Village, measuring one acre, originally belonged to one M.Doraisamy. By a sale deed, dated 210. 1961, the said Doraisamy sold the said land to one Mrs.R. Jayalakshmiammal, who, in turn, sold the same to Kurapatti Gajalakshamma and Kurapatti Sathyanarayanamma, by a registered sale deed, dated 12.01.1962. Pursuant to the same, the said two persons were in enjoyment of the property for 20 years and the southern half of the said land measuring 50 cents was sold to one Mrs.Lois Packianathan by a registered sale deed, dated 17.06.1982. Thereafter, the petitioner purchased the said 50 cents from Mrs.Lois Packianathan and since then, he became the owner and has been in enjoyment of the same and subsequently patta was granted for the said land in the year 1991, vide Patta No.1022. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that he has been paying land tax for the said land. In January, 2007, he came to know that certain elements were fabricating the documents and selling the lands in that area, without the knowledge of the original owners. Then, the petitioner applied for encumbrance certificate in respect of his land for the period from 01.01.1981 to 28.01.2007 and accordingly the certificate was issued. In January, 2007, he came to know that certain elements were fabricating the documents and selling the lands in that area, without the knowledge of the original owners. Then, the petitioner applied for encumbrance certificate in respect of his land for the period from 01.01.1981 to 28.01.2007 and accordingly the certificate was issued. However, to his shock and surprise, he was served with an order passed by the third respondent, dated 13.03.2007, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for computerised patta, on the ground that the land measuring 50 cents, which was covered by Survey No.381/2B2 of Perangalathur Village, had been unified with R.S.No.381 and subdivided into 381/1A2, 381/27, 381/26, 381/31, 381/32 and 381/45 and pattas were granted in respect of each of those sub-divisions in favour of some individuals and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to the patta. Immediately, the petitioner submitted an appeal to the second respondent on 14.03.2007 and also a letter to the first respondent, namely, the District Collector. Thereafter, he also gave a complaint to the Commissioner of Police on 22.08.2007. 5. The third respondent has filed a counter, the relevant paragraphs of which are 3 and 4, which read as under: "3. I state that initially Gurapatti Gajalakshamma and Gurupatti Lakshmanamma were given joint patta No.454 for 1 acre of land in R.S.No.381/2. In the year 1985, Mrs.Lois Packianathan, w/o. Packianathan was given patta No.1241 for 50 cents of land in R.S.No.381/2B2 on the basis of the purchase of the said land by her under sale deed dated 16. 1982 vide document No.2142/1982. Again in the year 1991, petitioner was given patta No.1022 for 50 cents of land in R.S.No.381/2B2 on the basis of his purchase under sale deed dated 21.06.1991 vide Doc.No.3165/1991. 4. I state that the petitioner applied for computerized patta on 21. 2007. On scrutinizing the records, it was found that the petitioners land in R.S.No.381/2B2 was unified with R.S.No.381 and sub-divided and subsequently pattas were issued to various individuals as per 8A/1480/97 (R.S.No.381/1A2, 381/27, 381/26, 381/31, 381/32 and 381/45). Hence computerized patta request of the petitioner was rejected." 6. It is also stated in the counter that the petitioner preferred an appeal against the order dated 13.03.2007 and the same is pending before Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalpattu. Hence computerized patta request of the petitioner was rejected." 6. It is also stated in the counter that the petitioner preferred an appeal against the order dated 13.03.2007 and the same is pending before Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalpattu. The counter further reveals that on scrutiny of chitta and adangal register, the name of the petitioner found place up to 1407 (1998) Fasli, and, subsequently, the petitioners land was subdivided and recorded in various individuals names. 7. Heard Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr.K.Elango, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents. 8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner purchased the property, to which patta was granted in the name of the petitioner, but, all-of-a-sudden, without any notice to the petitioner, the respondents proceeded to grant pattas in the names of several individuals, by taking away the right of the petitioner to his property. 9. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents brought to notice the relevant paragraphs 3 and 4 of the counter and submitted that though initially the property was in the name of the petitioner, later, it was subdivided and individual pattas were granted, pursuant to which the petitioner filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalpattu, and the same is pending. 10. I have given fair consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the relevant records, produced before this Court. 11. It is seen that the petitioner purchased the land measuring 50 cents in Survey No.381/2B2 and patta was granted in his name in the year 1991 and he paid tax. It is also seen that in Chitta and Adangal register, the name of the petitioner found place up to 1998 and subsequently the land was subdivided and recorded in various individual names. 12. On a perusal of the relevant records, it is seen that the property in question belonging to the petitioner has been wrongly included in the sub-divisions so also in respect of Survey No.381/2B2, which was a mistake on the part of the respondents, while making sub-divisions. 13. 12. On a perusal of the relevant records, it is seen that the property in question belonging to the petitioner has been wrongly included in the sub-divisions so also in respect of Survey No.381/2B2, which was a mistake on the part of the respondents, while making sub-divisions. 13. A thorough reading of the entire records would make it clear that the impugned order has been passed without any notice to the petitioner and the action of the respondents in making sub-divisions and granting pattas in respect of various individuals is against the established rules and the settled position of law. Therefore, the manner in which the sub-divisions and changes in the property were made by the respondents by including the land of the petitioner in the sub-divisions and granting pattas to various individuals cannot be sustained, as there was no notice to the petitioner, as a result of which he had been deprived of his right to the property, which was purchased by him in a lawful manner. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondents without affording any opportunity to the petitioner is ex facie illegal and in arbitrary exercise of powers. The order also suffers from legal infirmities and non-application of mind and the same cannot be sustained and it is set aside. 14. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to issue computerised patta in the name of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.No.1 of 2007 is closed.