JUDGMENT :- 1. Mr.K.Balasubramanian, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents. Heard Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner company has got leasehold right in respect of the land measuring to an extent of 4 acres and 22,059 sq.ft.in S.No.421 of St.Thomas Mount Village, Saidapet Taluk, which was actually transferred by the then East India Company to one Amoor Chetty on 23.04.1869. The petitioner has purchased the leasehold right under a registered document on 30.08.1990 vide Document No.2798/90. It appears that under the settlement proceedings, the petitioner company has approached the Assistant Settlement Officer, who has issued patta and that was reversed by the Commissioner of Land Administration, who, by invoking the suo motu powers under the Tamil Nadu Inam Abolition Act, took up the matter and concluded that the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer was without jurisdiction. However, the petitioner's possession under the leasehold right continues. 3. In a writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.32718 of 2004 for a direction against the respondents to assign the said land on the basis of the prevailing market value as on 18.03.1991, this Court, by an order dated 23.04.2008, has issued the positive direction, by allowing the writ petition. That came to be modified in the judgment rendered by the First Bench of this Court dated 24.03.2009 in the writ appeal (W.A.No.67 of 2009) filed by the Government/respondents to the effect that the petitioner should make representation for the purpose of assignment and that will be decided by the respondents in accordance with law and till such orders were passed, the possession of the petitioner shall not be disturbed. The operative portion of the said judgment reads as follows: "5. In the circumstances, we dispose of this writ appeal, by permitting the respondent to make such a representation, which shall be decided on its own merits. In the meanwhile, the legal possession of the respondent will not be disturbed and at the same time, the impugned order to grant assignment shall remain stayed till an order is passed by the Government on such representation.....". 4. In spite of such judgment passed by the Division Bench, no orders were passed obviously due to the reason that there was no time frame given in the writ appeal judgment. 4. In spite of such judgment passed by the Division Bench, no orders were passed obviously due to the reason that there was no time frame given in the writ appeal judgment. As such, the petitioner has again moved this Court by filing W.P.No.38 of 2010 and this Court, by its order dated 25.01.2010, after eliciting the judgment of the Division Bench, has directed the respondents to pass orders in terms of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench dated 24.03.2009, within a period of eight weeks. The operative portion of the order made in w.P.No.38 of 2010 reads as follows: "5. In the light of the above submissions, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.04.2009, followed with reminder dated 5.8.2009 and pass appropriate orders, taking note of the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.67 of 2009 dated 24.9.2009, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs" In spite of the said order, the respondents have not passed any order. Therefore, the petitioner company has made further representation on 03.12.2010 and this writ petition is to consider the said representation. 6. It is seen that the District Revenue Officer, in his letter addressed to the 1st respondent in A 45614/95 dated 25.10.1995, has given a proposal by fixing the price of the land, for which, the assignment in favour of the petitioner can be confirmed. Again, the Commissioner of Land Reforms in his letter addressed to the 1st respondent dated 13.06.2001, by referring to various Government Orders regarding the fixation of price, lands on assignment, etc. has recommended that the sale price can be fixed twice the amount. The relevant portion in the said recommendations reads as follows: (TAMIL) 7. In the representation made by the petitioner to the 1st respondent dated 03.12.2010, the petitioner has in clear terms agreed to pay three times the value which prevailed on 18.03.1991 even though the authorities have recommended double the market value. In such circumstances, the conduct of the 1st respondent in not passing the orders in spite of various directions given by this Court as well as the proposals given by the authorities in fixing the value, is highly deplorable. 8. In such circumstances, the conduct of the 1st respondent in not passing the orders in spite of various directions given by this Court as well as the proposals given by the authorities in fixing the value, is highly deplorable. 8. In such view of the matter, taking note of the present offer made by the petitioner to make payment triple the value of the land that prevailed on 18.03.1991 and the recommendations made by the authorities earlier, I am of the considered view that the 1st respondent should be directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders at an early point of time. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of, directing the 1st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 03.12.2010 in the light of the observations made above and pass orders, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Making it clear that the 1st respondent shall take serious note of the entire situation enumerated above and pass appropriate orders within the time stipulated herein. Needless to state that the petitioner's possession, which is continuous, shall not be disturbed till such orders are passed by the authorities. It is also made clear that while passing such orders, the 1st respondent shall give personal hearing to the petitioners so as to enable them to put forth their case. No costs.