Judgment :- 1. The land comprised in S.No.421/1 at Mullipuram Village, Kangeyam Taluk, Erode District was originally classified as Natham land and the extent of the land is 17.680 hectares. Under the Natham Settlement Scheme, patta was issued to the petitioner on 212. 1995. But, no appeal was preferred by any one challenging the said patta to the appellate authority. Instead, the fifth respondent claiming to be the President of Kongu Ilaigngar Pani Mandram, submitted a representation on 01.04.1997 to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Dharapuram requesting him to cancell the patta issued in favour of the petitioner. After holding an enquiry by order dated 13.05.1997, in Na.Ka.No.2149/97, the said request was rejected by the Assistant Settlement Officer. But curiously, on the very same day, he passed yet another order in Mu.Mu.No.2149 of 1997 dated 13.05.1997 cancelling the said patta issued in favour of the petitioner. Both the orders were passed obviously on the basis of the representation made by the fifth respondent. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Revenue Officer, Erode District. By order dated Na.Ka.S.R.No.13/97/A9/Ni.A dated 112. 1998, the District Revenue Officer confirmed the second order of the Assistant Settlement Officer thereby affirming the cancellation of patta issued in favour of the petitioner. Challenging the same, the petitioner is now before this Court with this writ petition. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 4. Since there was no representation for the fifth respondent on 10.06.2009, the matter was listed today to afford one more opportunity to the fifth respondent. Even today also, there is no representation on behalf of the fifth respondent and so, I proceed to dispose of the writ petition after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and also after perusing the available records. 3. A perusal of the records would go to show that the patta was issued to the petitioner under the Natham Settlement Scheme in the year 1995 and the same has become final since there was no appeal preferred under the said Scheme by any of the aggrieved party. Curiously, a representation was made by the fifth respondent to the Assistant Settlement Officer requesting him to cancell the patta issued in favour of the petitioner. Curiously, a representation was made by the fifth respondent to the Assistant Settlement Officer requesting him to cancell the patta issued in favour of the petitioner. It would further go to show that by proceedings in Na.Ka.No.2149/97 dated 13.05.1997, the Assistant Settlement Officer declined to cancel the patta. But shockingly, on the very same day by another order in Mu.Mu.No.2149 of 1997 dated 13.05.1997 he has cancelled the earlier patta issued in favour of the petitioner. This, in my considered opinion, obviously is illegal. The District Revenue Officer has not considered all these aspects and he has simply affirmed the cancellation of patta issued in favour of the petitioner. In my considered opinion, the order of cancellation of patta issued by the Assistant Settlement Officer and the affirmation order of the District Revenue Officer are liable to be interfered with by this Court. 4. It is the settled law that Natham land is a private land and if anybody is aggrieved by issuance of patta, he can very well establish his title independently before a competent civil Court. In this case, as I have already stated, the patta issued in favour of the petitioner had become final since there was no appeal preferred under the provisions of the Natham Settlement Scheme. Belatedly, the same cannot be cancelled since the authorities under the Scheme had become functus officio. 5. In view of all the above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of cancellation of patta issued by the Assistant Settlement Officer Tharapuram, Erode District and confirmed by the District Revenue Officer, Erode are set aside. However, it is made clear that if the fifth respondent feels that he has got title over the said property, he is at liberty to work out his remedies by getting his title declared in an appropriate civil suit to be filed before the civil Court. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.