Judgment : The prayer in the writ petition is for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the third respondent herein to conduct enquiry or directing any other District Collector/District Revenue Officer in nearby district to conduct enquiry in pursuant to the notice dated 12.01.2010. 2. The dispute in the present writ petition is relating to inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the records, in respect of Survey No.2295/1 Nelliyalam village, Nilgiris District. Earlier one Mr. Abdul Bari approached this Court by filing W.P.No.20988 of 2009, challenging the proceedings of the Additional Collector, Udhagamandalam dated 14.08.2009. By the said proceedings dated 14.08.2009 an order was passed setting aside the order passed by the Tahsildar, Pandalur dated 11.10.2006 which was in favour of the said Mr. Abdul Bari and his name was included in the patta. 3. After hearing the writ petitioner who has impleaded the first respondent in W.P.No.20988 of 2009 this Court set aside the order and remitted the matter to the Additional Collector, Udhagamandalam to pass fresh orders after giving due notice to the petitioner therein and to the first and the second respondents in the writ petition. Further the parties were directed to co-operate till the order is passed. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Additional Collector, Udhagamandalam has since been transferred and some other officer has taken up the enquiry namely the first respondent herein. In fact, in the writ petition the said officer has been impleaded in his personal capacity as the second respondent and certain malafides have been alleged in paragraph 24 and 25 of the affidavit. Further, the learned counsel would submit that the respondent department having been a party to the earlier order is bound to comply with the same. 5. Though allegations of malafides has been made against the second respondent, I do not propose to go into the same, since the writ petition is being disposed of on the following terms. 6. It has been stated by the respondents that since the Additional Collector had been transferred the matter has been referred to the District Revenue Officer, Nilgiris for conducting the adjudication as directed by this Court in W.P.No.20988 of 2009. This in my view is incorrect since this Court in the earlier order has issued specific direction to the Additional Collector to conduct the enquiry. This in my view is incorrect since this Court in the earlier order has issued specific direction to the Additional Collector to conduct the enquiry. Therefore the proper course would be for the third respondent either to take up the matter by himself or delegate the matter to an officer in the rank of Additional Collector. 7. Thus taking into consideration the facts and circumstances the writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to conduct the enquiry as directed by this Court in W.P.No.20988 of 2009 dated 08.12.2009 either by himself or by an officer equivalent in rank to that of the Additional Collector and after issuing notice to the petitioner and all other parties who are interested in the matter and complete the enquiry within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. With the above directions the writ petition is disposed of. No Costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2010 is closed.