JUDGMENT :- Heard Mr.V.Raghavachari, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mrs.V.Bhavani Subbarayan, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the first and the second respondents and Mr.P.Chandrasekaran, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent. 2. The writ petition has been filed, praying for a writ of Certiorari to call for the records, on the file of the first respondent in Rc.NO.G2/24644/03, dated 212. 2004 and to quash the same. 3. It is stated by the petitioner that she was assigned the property in S.No.61/9, an extent of 1.80 acres. The assignment was made in D.K.T.87/85, dated 20.07.1986. From the date of the assignment, the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the property in question. While so, the second respondent had passed an order, seeking cancellation of the assignment made in favour of the petitioner and a notice had been issued by the second respondent to the petitioner to show cause as to why the assignment made in her favour should not be cancelled. The petitioner had submitted an explanation, on 05.03.1992. Even without conducting an enquiry, an order had been passed, on 6. 1992, revoking the assignment made in favour of the petitioner. The reason for the revocation of the assignment was that the petitioners husband was already having a patta for 2.76 acres of land and that he had also inherited a share 0.30 cents of land. The petitioner has also stated that she had filed a revision petition against the order passed by the second respondent. The revision petition had been filed before the first respondent, who had confirmed the earlier order, by an order, dated 19.02.1993, without issuing a notice to the petitioner and without giving her an opportunity of hearing. 4. Challenging the order of the first respondent, dated 19.02.1993, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.6482 of 1993. By an order, dated 13.03.2001, this Court had quashed the order, passed by the first respondent, on 12. 1993, and remitted the matter back to the second respondent to pass fresh orders, after issuing notice to both the parties and after hearing them. Since the third respondent had attempted to interfere with the possession of the petitioner, she had filed a suit in O.S.No.919 of 1992, praying for the reliefs of declaration and for interim injunction. 1993, and remitted the matter back to the second respondent to pass fresh orders, after issuing notice to both the parties and after hearing them. Since the third respondent had attempted to interfere with the possession of the petitioner, she had filed a suit in O.S.No.919 of 1992, praying for the reliefs of declaration and for interim injunction. The third respondent had also filed a suit in O.S.No.933 of 1993, on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai, praying for the relief of permanent injunction. Both the suits were tried together and by a judgment and decree, dated 24.09.2001, the petitioners suit in O.S.No.919 of 1992, had been decreed and the suit in O.S.No.933 of 1993, filed by the third respondent had been dismissed. The second respondent had passed an order after the matter had been remitted, confirming his earlier order of cancellation of the assignment in Proc.No.A2.8421/1998, dated 30.10.2001. Challenging the said order, the petitioner had preferred a revision before the first respondent. The third respondent had also challenged the said order, by way of an appeal, as against the cancellation of the assignment. 5. After an enquiry, the first respondent had passed an order rejecting the claim of the third respondent and an order was passed in favour of the petitioner directing her to pay twice the market value for the assigned land. While so, the order of the first respondent, which was challenged by the third respondent before the Government, had been confirmed. Without challenging the order made by the Government, the order of the first respondent was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.18679 of 2003. By an order, dated 17.09.2004, this Court had remanded the matter back to the first respondent for fresh enquiry, after giving an opportunity of hearing for both the parties. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner had appeared for the enquiry and she had sought for more time to obtain the assistance of a counsel as she was an illiterate lady. When the counsel who had appeared on behalf of the petitioner had sought for time to verify the files, the first respondent had refused such permission and the counsel was asked to file a vakalat before he made his representation. Since the request of the counsel for verifying the files was turned down, the said counsel has left without participating in the further proceedings relating to the matter. Since the request of the counsel for verifying the files was turned down, the said counsel has left without participating in the further proceedings relating to the matter. In spite of the petitioners repeated request for legal assistance, the first respondent has refused to grant further time and he has passed the impugned order, on 212. 2004, which has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the impugned order, dated 212. 2004, had been passed by the first respondent without giving to the petitioner an opportunity of hearing as directed by this Court, by its order, dated 17.09.2004 in W.P.No.18679 of 2003, resulting in miscarriage of justice. 7. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.V.Prakash, appearing on behalf of the third respondent had submitted that the first respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 212. 2004, after following the principles of natural justice and the procedures established by law. Therefore, it cannot be claimed by the petitioner in the present writ petition that she was not given sufficient opportunity to represent her case through her counsel. There is no right in the petitioner to demand that her case ought to be represented by a qualified legal practitioner, unless it is shown that the third respondent was also represented through a legally qualified person and the complexities of the case requires such representation. It was also alleged by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent that the petitioner has come before this Court by filing the present writ petition only with the intention of unduly delaying the process involved in the decision making. It was also submitted that the land in question had been assigned to the third respondent since he was qualified for the assignment as he was a blind person. 8. On hearing the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned, the main question arising for consideration before this Court at this stage is whether the parties have been given a reasonable opportunity of hearing before the first respondent had passed the impugned order in his proceedings Rc.No.G2/24644/03, dated 212. 2004. 9. 8. On hearing the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned, the main question arising for consideration before this Court at this stage is whether the parties have been given a reasonable opportunity of hearing before the first respondent had passed the impugned order in his proceedings Rc.No.G2/24644/03, dated 212. 2004. 9. On a perusal of the records placed before this Court, by the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the first and second respondents, it is clear that the petitioner had not been given sufficient opportunity to represent her case through her counsel as requested by her. Being an illiterate lady, she could not have understood the nuances and the intricacies of the issues involved in the matter. It seems that there was no good reason for the first respondent to turn down the request of the petitioner and her counsel to verify the relevant records to effectively represent the case of the petitioner. 10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of third respondent could not show sufficient cause or reason in support of the decision of the first respondent refusing to entertain the requests made on behalf of the petitioner. 11. It is pertinent to note that this Court, having considered the various issues involved in the matter, had passed an order, on 17.09.2004 in W.P.No.18679 of 2003, directing the first respondent to issue notice to both the contesting parties and to pass orders in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to both sides. 12. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the first respondent Rc.No.G2/24644/03, dated 212. 2004 is liable to be quashed and therefore, it is quashed. 13. While quashing the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, dated 212. 2004, the first respondent is directed to hear the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, without reference to the earlier order, dated 212. 2004, made in Rc.No.G2/24644/2003. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.