Judgment 1. The petitioner herein challenge the order dated 09.06.2000 passed by the 2nd respondent under which, her name was directed to be deleted in the Revenue records pertaining the re-survey No. 173/2 at Vijayama nagaram village, Virudhachalam Taluk and consequently the husband of the 4th respondent ordered to be recorded encroacher. 2. The petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of this petition averred that she is the absolute owner of the land measuring 4.42 acres bearing Survey No. 173/2 and the land measuring 0.44 acres bearing Survey No. 173/3 of Vijaya Managaram Village, Virudhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District having purchased the same from one Anthonyswamy, by a registered sale deed dated 12.06.1991. The said Anthonyswamy had bought it from one Arumuga Padayachi, by a registered sale deed dated 112. 1984. 3. The petitioner further averred that ever since 1984, she is in possession and enjoyment of title an extent of 4.86 acres of lands and even prior to her possession her predecessor in title viz., Anthonysamy was in a possession and enjoyment of the said lands and thus at no point of time no one had enjoyed the said lands. The petitioner further averred that the 4th respondents husband one Pakkirisamy appears to have moved an application praying for inclusion of his name in the Adangal in respect of the land ad-measuring 4.42 acres bearing Survey No. 173/2 of Vijaya Managaram Village, Virudhachalam Taluk stating that he had been cultivating the said land for the Fasli years 1362 to 1394. The second respondent without making any proper enquiry, has passed an order dated 09.06.2000 ordering the name of Pakkrisamy, the husband of the 4th respondent to be recorded in the place of the petitioner. The petitioner also stated that while passing order dated 09.06.2000, neither the said Arumugam nor herself has been examined by the second respondent and no proper enquiry was conducted. 4. The petitioner on coming to know about the same, submitted a representation to the second respondent for inclusion of her name in the Adangal and in all other land records and the second respondent vide order dated 10.02.2002, has ordered the inclusion. 4. The petitioner on coming to know about the same, submitted a representation to the second respondent for inclusion of her name in the Adangal and in all other land records and the second respondent vide order dated 10.02.2002, has ordered the inclusion. The 4th respondent has filed W.P. No. 18959 of 2004 before this Court praying for issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent herein to implement the above said order dated 09.06.2000 passed by the second respondent and in the said writ petition, the petitioner herein has not been arrayed as a party. The second respondent herein also did not brought it to the knowledge of this Court, the above said order dated 10. 2002, where under the petitioners name was directed to be included as the owner of the said extent of 4.86 acres of land by the second respondent. This Court vide final order dated 06.07.2004 in the said writ petition, has directed the 3rd respondent to implement the order dated 09.06.2000 passed by the second respondent. 5. The petitioner further averred that she was not aware of the issuance of the above said order dated 09.06.2000 by the second respondent and the impugned order dated 09.06.2000 is per se in violation of principles of natural justice, as the same came to be passed without any notice. Hence, she prays for quashing the impugned order and for consequential reliefs. 6. The 4th respondent has filed the counter affidavit contending that her husband viz., Pakkirisamy was given special assignment patta pertaining to the land ad-measuring 2.21 acres of land in Survey No. 173/2, Vijaya Managaram Village, Virudhachalam District and the patta No. DKT 327/81. Subsequently, her husband was put in possession of the land and he was in absolute enjoyment of the said land without any interruption whatsoever from any quarters and his name was also entered in the Chitta and Adangal records of the revenue records. Till, 1985, the name of her husband continued in the Revenue records. During the year, 1985, there were communal clashes in and around the area and the movements were restricted and further due to drought also, there was no payment of tax. Till, 1985, the name of her husband continued in the Revenue records. During the year, 1985, there were communal clashes in and around the area and the movements were restricted and further due to drought also, there was no payment of tax. Thereafter, when her husband Pakkirisamy went to pay the revenue levy and statutory levy, he came to know that the land has been assigned to some third parties and chitta and adangal were transferred in their name. Hence, the husband of the petitioner constrained to file W.P. No. 14514 of 1991 to safeguard the legal rights and this Court has passed an order, directing the 2nd respondent conduct the fresh enquiry. After taking in to consideration of the relevant records the second respondent has passed an order dated 09.06.2000 stating that the land in Survey No. 173/2 has been in occupation of 4th respondents husband, for the fasli 1382 to 1394 and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. In spite of repeated demands, the 3rd respondent has not taken any action to implement the orders passed by the second respondent. After the demise of her husband, she sent several representations to all the respondents to consider her case, but no action was taken by the respondents. Therefore, the 4th respondent constrained to file W.P. No. 2739 of 2003 on the file of this Court and this Court has passed final order directing the concerned respondents to dispose of the representation dated 01.02.2001 and 10.09.2001 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. 7. Thereafter, once again the 4th respondent filed W.P. No. 18959 of 2004 for a writ of mandamus directing the concerned Village Administrative Officer to implement the order of Tahsildar and this Court has passed the final order directing the concerned Village Administrative Officer to implement the order of the Tahsildar. The 4th respondent further averred that after the demise of her husband, she is continue to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lands ad-measuring 2.21 acres in Survey No. 173/2, Vijaya Managaram Village, Virudhachalam Taluk. Hence, the 4th respondent prayed for dismissal of this writ petition. 8. Heard Mr. R. Margabandhu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R. Neelakandan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. D. Ravichandar, learned counsel appearing for 4th respondent. 9. Hence, the 4th respondent prayed for dismissal of this writ petition. 8. Heard Mr. R. Margabandhu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R. Neelakandan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. D. Ravichandar, learned counsel appearing for 4th respondent. 9. A perusal of the impugned order dated 09.06.2000 reveals that the name of the husband of the 4th respondent was found in the revenue records pertaining to the fasli years 1382 to 1394 and that the concerned Village Administrative Officer without proper any verification of the documents, entered into the name of a person who was in possession. Therefore, the second respondent has passed an order directing the registration of the inclusion of the husband of the 4th respondent in the concerned records. Subsequently, at the instance of the petitioner herein, the same respondent has passed an order dated 10. 2002 canceling the entries made in the records pertaining the above said fasli years and directing to inclusion of the name of the petitioner as an encroacher. 10. Admittedly, the order dated 09.06.2000, which is in favour of the 4th respondent and the order dated 10. 2002 which is in favour of the petitioner herein came to be passed without any affording opportunity to the concerned parties. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent would submit that in WP.MP. No. 965 of 2007 filed by the petitioner herein, in this writ petition it is averred that she has entered an agreement on 012. 2001 with one Poorasamy to sell her property in Survey No. 173/2, ad-measuring 4.42 acres and ad-measuring 0.44 cents in Survey No. 173/3 for a sum of Rs. 2, 04,050/- and received an advance of Rs. 51,000/-. It is further averred in the affidavit that the agreement holder viz., Poorasamy, has filed a suit in O.S. No. 357 of 2004 against the petitioner herein on the file of the District Munsif Court, Virudhachalam praying for return of advance amount on the ground that she is not owner of the property. Therefore, she prayed for stay of further proceedings of said suit filed by Poorasamy. 12. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent further submitted that in view of the said averments, it could be implied that the petitioner is not having any title of the suit property. 13. Therefore, she prayed for stay of further proceedings of said suit filed by Poorasamy. 12. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent further submitted that in view of the said averments, it could be implied that the petitioner is not having any title of the suit property. 13. This Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the said submissions as the said issue can be adjudicated in O.S. No. 357 of 2004 filed by one Poorasamy against the petitioner. Insofar as the impugned order is concerned, it has been passed without any notice and without affording any opportunity to the petitioner and in the considered opinion of this Court it is per-se in violation of the principle of natural justice. Therefore, in all fairness, the second respondent ought to have given opportunity to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Therefore, on this sole ground, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 09.06.2000 passed by the second respondent is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the second respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner as well as to the 4th respondent. The second respondent shall do the said exercise within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected M.Ps are closed.