Judgment :- 1. The present writ petition is directed against the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in M.P.No.19/2010 (palani), dated 08.03.2010, on the ground that when the 4th respondent made an application before the Assistant Commissioner, Revenue Court, Tiruchirappalli/2nd respondent herein, on 08.03.2010, the 2nd respondent herein, without giving a notice to the petitioners, given a direction to the Record Officer, Tahsildar, Pollachi/3rd respondent herein, to dispose of the pending case No.TR.10/2001 and also granted an order of status quo. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners has filed a suit in O.S.No.803/1987 seeking permanent injunction in respect of S.F.No.46/1 against the 4th respondent. The Civil Court has decreed the suit on 24.11.1994 granting permanent injunction against the 4th respondent. Admittedly, the 4th respondent did not prefer any appeal against that order. Once again, the 4th respondent tried to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners' land in S.F.No.46/1, which necessitated the petitioners to file second civil suit in O.S.No.628/92 and after trial, the second suit was also decreed in favour of the petitioners on 07.07.1994. Aggrieved by the said order, again the 4th respondent did not prefer any appeal and thereby, the said order became final. 3. Similarly, when the 4th respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.57/1992 against the petitioners, the said suit was also dismissed holding that the petitioners are in possession of the land in question covered in S.F.No.46/1. As against that order, when an appeal in A.S.No.159/1994 was preferred by the 4th respondent, the Appellate Court has also dismissed his appeal, by its order dated 12.01.1996. As against that, when the second appeal was preferred in S.A.No.832/1998 before this Court, this Court by its order dated 27.07.1998 has held thus in paragraph 3. 4. When the matter has been remitted to the Revenue Authorities for fresh enquiry naturally, the Revenue Authority is expected to dispose of the matter, without taking into consideration any of the findings given either in the earlier proceedings arising out of the Revenue Courts or Civil Courts. 4. When the matter has been remitted to the Revenue Authorities for fresh enquiry naturally, the Revenue Authority is expected to dispose of the matter, without taking into consideration any of the findings given either in the earlier proceedings arising out of the Revenue Courts or Civil Courts. When once the Revenue Authorities have been directed to make enquiries and dispose of the claim of the parties, I am of the view that the findings given by the courts below in this proceedings, that is the lower court proceedings out of which the Second Appeal arises need not be taken into consideration. As already the matter is remitted to the lower court, the Revenue Authorities, it would be suffice to direct the Revenue Authorities to dispose of the matter dehors of the findings given by the Civil Court as well as the Revenue Authorities in the earlier proceedings. With this observation, the Second Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, C.M.P. is also dismissed. On this basis, the learned counsel for the petitioners, again came to the original issue saying that when this Court categorically stated that the Tahsildar, before whom, the matter is pending in T.R.10/2001, has been directed to dispose of the matter without being influenced by any of the orders passed by the revenue authorities as well as the civil courts, ignoring the said proceedings in the above mentioned second appeal, the 4th respondent has wrongly filed a petition in M.P.No.19/2010 behind the back of the petitioners before the Assistant Commissioner, Revenue Court, Tiruchirappalli/2nd respondent herein and in turn the 2nd respondent herein, by order dated 08.03.2010, without notice to the petitioners, has granted status quo by directing the Record Officer/Tahsildar, Pollachi to dispose of the case No.TR.10/2001, which is working against the interests of the petitioners and on that basis, he sought for a dismissal of the impugned order dated 08.03.2010. 5. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondents submitted that the observation made by this Court in CRP.No.1536 of 1988, dated 28.10.1996, is that the nature of the land also should not be changed. 5. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondents submitted that the observation made by this Court in CRP.No.1536 of 1988, dated 28.10.1996, is that the nature of the land also should not be changed. On that basis, he again submitted that the impugned order dated 08.03.2010 has been passed without notice to the petitioners, only in the interest of maintaining peace between the petitioners and the 4th respondent and therefore, till the disposal of the TR.No.10/2001, if a direction is given to both parties to maintain the status quo, no prejudice would be caused to anyone. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 7. After going through the order passed by this Court in S.A.No.832 of 1998, dated 27.07.1998 as well as the relevant materials produced before this Court, I am of the view that when the application was filed by the 4th respondent on 08.03.2010 before the 2nd respondent requesting to pass the stay order, the 2nd respondent should not have disposed of the application filed by the 4th respondent on the very same date by granting order of status quo without issuing notice to the petitioners, for the reason that when the petitioners' deceased mother had filed two civil suits, namely, O.S.No.803/1987 and O.S.No.628/1992 against the 4th respondent seeking a decree for permanent injunction, the Civil Courts have successively allowed the above mentioned suits granting the decrees against the 4th respondent and thereafter, the 4th respondent did not prefer any appeal against any one of these decrees granted by the Civil Courts. Secondly, when the 4th respondent filed another suit in O.S.No.57/1992 against the petitioners' mother, the said suit was also dismissed giving a specific finding that the petitioners family are in possession and enjoyment of the land in question covered in S.F.No.46/1. Aggrieved by the said order, when an appeal in A.S.No.159/1994 was preferred by the 4th respondent, the Appellate Court had also dismissed the said appeal by an order dated 12.01.1996. Aggrieved by the said order, when an appeal in A.S.No.159/1994 was preferred by the 4th respondent, the Appellate Court had also dismissed the said appeal by an order dated 12.01.1996. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, when the second appeal was filed before this Court in S.A.No.832/1998, as I mentioned earlier, this Court, by its order dated 27.07.1998, by dismissing the second appeal directed the Revenue Authorities to dispose of the matter without taking into consideration any of the findings given by the Civil Courts as well as Revenue Authorities in the earlier proceedings. So much so, when this Court has directed the Revenue Authorities to dispose of the matter, the 2nd respondent herein while entertaining the application filed by the 4th respondent on 08.03.2010, should not have passed an order of status-quo against the petitioners, when the matter was hotly contested by the petitioners as well as the 4th respondent every now and then before the Civil Courts as well as Revenue Authorities. Therefore, the impugned order came to be passed by the 2nd respondent without giving a notice to the petitioners, which is also contrary to the order passed by this Court in S.A.No.832/1998, dated 27.07.1998, is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside. 8. In fine, I direct the Record Officer, Tahsildar, Pollachi/the 3rd respondent herein, to dispose of the case No.TR.10/2001, which is pending before him, on or before 30th June, 2011, without being influenced by the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Revenue Court, Tiruchirappalli / the 2nd respondent herein, dated 08.03.2010. 9. With the above observation, the present writ petition is allowed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.