Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. The appellant-writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) is aggrieved by the proceedings, dated 212. 1999 of the second respondent-District Revenue Officer (for short, the DRO), Vellore District, directing him not to alienate or transfer the property in question, assuming that the transfer should not be effected in the Revenue Records. 2. The appellant-writ petitioner has preferred Writ Petition against the said Proceedings, dated 212. 1999 contained in No.B-3-Pa-Mu-19908/99. 3. The learned single Judge, by the impugned order dated 21. 2000 in Writ Petition No.1180 of 2000, having noticed the facts and circumstances, held that the proceedings of the DRO, directing the petitioner not to effect the transfer in the Revenue Records, cannot be held to be arbitrary and illegal. Hence, the Writ Appeal by the petitioner. 4. As the case can be disposed of on a short point, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, except the relevant one. 5 The vendor of the petitioner, namely Mr.Krishnalal Jain had executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of the third respondent-E.M. Nagalingam and on that basis, the third respondent entered into an agreement of sale; while so, the vendor of the petitioner cancelled the General Power of Attorney and then entered into the sale transaction on the very same property. It appears that thereafter, the petitioner applied for registration of land in his favour, but it was allowed and the patta was issued in his favour. At this stage, the third respondentpreferred appeal before the DRO and on his appeal, by the impugned proceedings, dated 212. 1999, the third respondent directed the petitioner not to alienate or transfer the property in question assuming that even if he does so, the transfer should not be effected in the Revenue Records. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the third respondent, who was the Power of Attorney-Holder, preferred a suit in O.S.No.86 of 1998 before the Subordinate Court, Vellore, at Ranipet and the same was dismissed and the subsequently, the Appeal Suit preferred by him was also dismissed. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 while not disputing the aforesaid facts, also could not lay hand on any law to show that the DRO had such jurisdiction to direct a party not to alienate or transfer any property. 8. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 while not disputing the aforesaid facts, also could not lay hand on any law to show that the DRO had such jurisdiction to direct a party not to alienate or transfer any property. 8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 9. Admittedly, the DRO or any authority of the State, has no jurisdiction to give any declaration with regard to the right and title of a property, and thereby, he has no jurisdiction to direct any lawful owner of the property not to alienate or transfer or prohibit such transfer or alienation of the property. The learned single Judge, having failed to notice the aforesaid position of law, we have no other option except to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 21. 2000 in Writ Petition No.1180 of 2000, as also the impugned proceedings of the second respondent-DRO, Vellore District, dated 212. 1999. 10. The Writ Appeal is allowed, but there shall be no order as to costs.