Judgment :- 1. The petitioners have come forward with this petition challenging the order passed by the first respondent dated 30.05.2005 made in Na.Ka.25528/04/B3 along with the order of the second respondent dated 19.05.2004 made in Na.Ka.584/2004/A2 with a prayer to quash the same. 2. The factual matrix of this case is as follows: 2.1. The first petitioner purchased an extent of 12 cents of vacant land comprised in S.No.143 of No.61, Kotattur Village formerly Saidapet Taluk and Chengalpattu District from one Radha Naicker and his wife Mariammal under Sale Deed dated 02.05.1980 registered as Document No.1836/1980 at the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Ambattur. The wife of the first petitioner namely Smt.Jayalakshmi also purchased 11 cents of land from same Radha Naicker and his wife under Sale Deed dated 02.05.1980 registered as Document No.1837/1980. They have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the above said total 23 cents of land ever since from the date of purchase. 2.2. The Deputy Tahsildhar, Saidapet originally granted patta No.2714 in favour of the wife of the first petitioner on 26.11.1987 for the portion purchased by her and the said portion was subdivided and S.No.143/1B had been assigned for the same. Likewise, the Deputy Tahsildhar, Saidapet granted patta No.2713 in favour of the first petitioner for the extent of 12 cents purchased by the first petitioner and the said land had been subdivided and a separate S.No.143/1C had been assigned. Subsequently, after re-survey in 1994, the Deputy Tahsildhar, Ambattur granted fresh patta bearing Nos.4790 and 4791 on 24.08.1994 in favour of the first petitioner's wife and himself respectively with modification of S.Nos. as 143/2C and 143/2E respectively. 2.3. The wife of the first petitioner died on 5.10.2000 leaving behind the first petitioner and the petitioners 2 and 3 as her legal heirs and all the three succeeded to the extent of 11 cents belonging to the wife of the first petitioner. Therefore, the entire extent of 23 cents mentioned above belonged to the petitioners family. The Special Tahsildhar, Ambattur had granted fresh patta after Town Survey and assigned T.S.No.25 for the entire extent of 23 cents purchased by the first petitioner and his wife as per the Town Survey Land Register. Therefore, the petitioners are the absolute owners of the entire extent of 23 cents comprised formerly in S.No.143/2C and 143/2E and now in T.S.No.25 of Korattur Village. 2.4. Therefore, the petitioners are the absolute owners of the entire extent of 23 cents comprised formerly in S.No.143/2C and 143/2E and now in T.S.No.25 of Korattur Village. 2.4. An extent of 2.09 acres comprised in S.No.143 of Korattur Village, originally belonged to Seeyala Naicker, Damodara Naicker and Singara Naicker sons of Egappa Naicker and they have purchased the same from one Govindasamy Naicker under Sale Deed dated 16.06.1926 registered as Document No.776/1926 at the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Sembium. The said Seeyala Naicker had three sons namely Rajabather Naicker @ Kannan, Rajabather @ Jayaraman and Radha Naicker while Sri Damodara Naicker had two sons namely, Kannappa Naicker and Gangadhara Naicker. Singara Naicker had only daughter by name Smt.Muniammal (fourth respondent). On 29.04.1976, there was family arrangement among the legal heirs of Seeyala Naicker, Damodara Naicker and Singara Naicker. However, the said family arrangement was not acted upon and never given effect to. However, on the basis of rearrangement among the co-owners in which Smt.Muniammal (fourth respondent), the sole heir of the Singara Naicker got her portion in the north of the said property and that she sold her entire share of land comprised in S.No.143 on 26.11.1979. It is, therefore, apparent that the fourth respondent had sold her entire land on 26.11.1979 itself and that she ceased to have any interest in the land comprised in S.No.143 long before the first petitioner and his wife purchased their lands from one of the other partners, namely, Radha Naicker. 2.5. An extent of 1.08 acres out of the total extent of 2.09 acres mentioned above had been acquired on the western side for the formation of ring road under World Bank Scheme. In the notification issued under Section 4(1) and the Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, the names of all the persons interested in the said lands had been mentioned obviously based upon the entries in the revenue records and the information obtained thereon. Though the extent of the lands proposed to be acquired for road formation had been segregated as S.No.143/1, the specific extent sought to be acquired from the individual owners were not given and there is no evidence to show that the remaining portion was assigned S.No.143/2 since even after acquisition, it was mentioned only as 143/1A, 1B, 1C etc. Though the extent of the lands proposed to be acquired for road formation had been segregated as S.No.143/1, the specific extent sought to be acquired from the individual owners were not given and there is no evidence to show that the remaining portion was assigned S.No.143/2 since even after acquisition, it was mentioned only as 143/1A, 1B, 1C etc. Even though the first petitioner and his wife's name had been mentioned in the said notification, there was no dispute that the land sought to be acquired is situate on the western side and that the land belonging to the petitioners was lying on the eastern side which did not come under acquisition. 2.6. Subsequently, the fourth respondent filed a petition before the Tahsildhar, Ambattur, the third respondent herein, for cancellation of patta granted in favour of the first petitioner and his wife on 09.01.2004. In the said petition, the fourth respondent had made a statement that she had been in possession and enjoyment of the property got by her in partition and that patta had been granted wrongly to the first petitioner and his wife and contrary to the alleged petition. It appears that the said Tahsildhar had dismissed the said petition in limine in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.1229/2004/C3 dated 05.02.2004. Thereafter, the fourth respondent appeared to have filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri, the 2nd respondent herein for the same relief of cancellation of patta granted in favour of the first petitioner and his wife. The Revenue Divisional Officer did not treat the said petition filed by the fourth respondent as appeal, but deal with it only as Original Petition and passed an order in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.584/2004/A2 dated 19.05.2004 allowing the said petition and cancelling the patta granted in favour of the petitioner and his wife and further directing restoration of the same to its original position. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an appeal before the first respondent in view of the fact that the second respondent treated the appeal as Original Petition. But the first respondent treated the said appeal as Revision Petition and disposed of the same by its proceedings Rc.No.25528/04/B3 dated 30.05.2005 directing the second respondent to reconsider the matter by spot inspection of the land in question, verification of the records and pass an order afresh. But the first respondent treated the said appeal as Revision Petition and disposed of the same by its proceedings Rc.No.25528/04/B3 dated 30.05.2005 directing the second respondent to reconsider the matter by spot inspection of the land in question, verification of the records and pass an order afresh. Being aggrieved against the above said orders, the petitioners have come forward with this petition with the above said prayer. 3. Though the fourth respondent was served notice as per the proof affidavit filed before this Court by the petitioners, she neither appeared in person nor through any advocate. 4. The second respondent filed a counter denying the allegations set forth by the petitioners in their affidavit, except those that are admitted by him in its counter. It is stated by the second respondent that the fourth respondent filed an objection for grant of patta in favour of the first petitioner and his wife and the said petition was rejected by the third respondent and the third respondent granted patta No.2714 in favour of the wife of the first petitioner as S.No.143/1B and in favour of the first petitioner under patta No.2713 as S.No.143/1C. It is stated that thereafter, the fourth respondent preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri, namely, the second respondent herein, who allowed the said appeal preferred by the fourth respondent and cancelled the patta granted in favour of the first petitioner and his wife. It is further stated by the second respondent in the counter that the said order was passed on the basis of the records and after enquiry. It is also stated that the land acquisition proceedings were initiated in respect of the disputed property and the same was concluded with an award under Section 11(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 and the entire amount of compensation was ordered to be kept under Civil Court deposit. It is further stated that the Civil Court has made an apportionment in favour of the petitioners and kept the compensation under Fixed Deposit. 5. On a perusal of the copy of certain original records produced before this Court, this Court has found that during the pendency of this writ petition and in spite of granting the interim relief of stay by this Court by the order dated 02.01.2006, the third respondent has transferred the patta in favour of one Elumalai. 5. On a perusal of the copy of certain original records produced before this Court, this Court has found that during the pendency of this writ petition and in spite of granting the interim relief of stay by this Court by the order dated 02.01.2006, the third respondent has transferred the patta in favour of one Elumalai. In view of the same, this Court passed an order dated 23.12.2010 to implead the said Elumalai as the fifth respondent by the above said suo-motu order of this Court and also directed the third respondent herein to file an affidavit explaining under what circumstances the patta was transferred in favour of the fifth respondent and also to show cause why this Court should not initiate contempt proceedings against him. But, till date, the third respondent has not filed any affidavit explaining the circumstances under which he has passed the order of granting patta in favour of the fifth respondent. 6. The fifth respondent, represented by a counsel, has filed a counter to the writ petition. It is stated by the fifth respondent that he was not a party to the earlier proceedings that had been decided before the respondents 1 to 3. He claims that he is an innocent purchaser for valuable consideration having purchased an extent of 11 cents in S.No.143/2E and another extent of 12 cents in S.No.143/2C from the children of the fourth respondent herein. It is stated that the Sale Deed was executed on 31.01.2005. It is further stated by the fifth respondent that the writ petition itself is not maintainable as the matter relates to the grant of patta or rejection of a claim for a patta, relating to the disputed question of fact and involves elaborate oral and documentary evidence. It is also stated that the property said to have been purchased by the petitioners had been acquired by the Government Highways Department as early as in the year 1987 and an award was also passed under the Land Acquisition Act and the first petitioner and his wife refused to accept the compensation and the same was deposited in the Court. The fifth respondent also stated in the counter that he has no knowledge about the fourth respondent having made an application to the third respondent for grant of patta and the said factor was not disclosed at the time of his purchase on 31.01.2005. The fifth respondent also stated in the counter that he has no knowledge about the fourth respondent having made an application to the third respondent for grant of patta and the said factor was not disclosed at the time of his purchase on 31.01.2005. The fifth respondent claims that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property under dispute from the date of his purchase. 7.Mr.S.Vijayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently contended that the petitioners are in physical possession and enjoyment of the property and the property under the possession of the petitioners have not been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. It is pointed out that the District Revenue Officer, the first respondent herein, has given a clear finding to the effect that the lands of the petitioners are not forming part of the acquisition proceedings. It is contended that having given such a finding, the first respondent ought not to have remanded the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer, namely, the second respondent herein, for further enquiry. It is further contended that the fourth respondent having sold the entire lands has no locus standi to question the lands sold by the other co-sharers and the patta granted to the petitioners. It is also contended that though the second respondent has stated in its counter to the effect that the lands purchased by the petitioners were also acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, the first respondent has given a clear finding to the effect that the said lands of the petitioners were not acquired. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that merely because the petitioners aware about the land acquisition proceedings, it cannot be stated that the petitioners delivered possession of their lands. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the fifth respondent has come forward with a false claim through its counter stating that he is unaware about the fourth respondent filing an application to the third respondent/Tahsildhar for grant of patta in her name and further stating that the said factor was also not disclosed at the time of his purchase on 31.01.2005. It is pointed out that the sale deed executed in favour of the fifth respondent was released only on 21.03.2007 and even prior to the said date, the patta was transferred in his name on 29.07.2006, as per the information obtained under the Right to Information Act. It is pointed out that the sale deed executed in favour of the fifth respondent was released only on 21.03.2007 and even prior to the said date, the patta was transferred in his name on 29.07.2006, as per the information obtained under the Right to Information Act. It is also pointed out that even in the said Sale Deed, it is specifically stated about the patta granted in favour of the first petitioner and his wife and also stated about the cancellation of the patta granted in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, the fifth respondent is fully aware about the grant of patta and cancellation of patta and the proceedings initiated before the respondents 1 to 3. It is contended that the first respondent having partly allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioners, ought not to have remanded the matter for fresh enquiry with a view to go deep into the matter with regard to the title of the said property as the Revenue Authorities are not having jurisdiction to go into such dispute. It is pointed out that only the Civil Court is having jurisdiction to go into the disputed facts of title. The learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his contentions, would place reliance on the following decisions: (i) Vishwas Footwear Company Ltd. v. The District Collector, Kancheepuram, reported in 2011 (5) CTC 94 (ii) Ashwinkumar K. Patel v. Upendra J. Patel and Others reported in (1999) 3 SCC 161 . 9. Mr.G.Jeremiah, learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent mainly contended that the writ petition itself is not maintainable in view of the disputed facts involved in this matter which requires elaborate oral and documentary evidence. It is contended that the petitioners land had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and an award was also passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and the compensation was deposited in the Civil Court as the petitioners not received the same. It is contended that the fifth respondent is the bonafide purchaser of the subject property and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. 10. Mr.P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram, learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders passed by the respondents 1 and 2. It is contended that the second respondent passed the impugned order dated 19.05.2004 on merits on the basis of records. 10. Mr.P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram, learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders passed by the respondents 1 and 2. It is contended that the second respondent passed the impugned order dated 19.05.2004 on merits on the basis of records. It is submitted that the petitioners' lands were already acquired by the land acquisition proceedings initiated and concluded and an award was also passed. It is pointed out that as the petitioners not received the compensation amount, the Civil Court had made the apportionment in respect of the compensation and the amount was deposited in the Fixed Deposit Scheme as per the land acquisition records. 11. This Court carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and perused the affidavit filed by the petitioners and the counter affidavit filed by the respondents and also perused the impugned orders passed by the respondents 1 and 2. 12. At the outset, it is to be stated that this is a classic case wherein the official respondents, namely, the respondents 1 to 3 have not come forward with a clear and categorical version regarding the issue involved in this matter. The undisputed fact remains that the first petitioner and his wife have been initially granted patta in their favour after the purchase of the said disputed property as early as on 02.05.1980 through the registered Sale Deed as per Document Nos.1836/1980 and 1837/1980. It is pertinent to note that the fourth respondent filed a petition for cancellation of the patta, granted in favour of the first petitioner and his wife, before the third respondent and the said petition was dismissed on 05.02.2004. As against the said order, she preferred an appeal before the second respondent and the same was allowed on 19.05.2004. The said order was challenged by the petitioners before the first respondent and the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 30.05.2005. In the said order, a clear and definite finding was rendered by the first respondent to the effect that the said property as claimed by the petitioners were not acquired under the land acquisition proceedings. On the other hand, the second respondent has given a finding to the effect that the said property was acquired under the land acquisition proceedings. 13. On the other hand, the second respondent has given a finding to the effect that the said property was acquired under the land acquisition proceedings. 13. The perusal of the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 30.05.2005 further reveals that the first respondent has dealt with the matter elaborately by perusing the entire records including the files relating to the land acquisition proceedings, culminating into passing the award of compensation to the owners of the respective properties. Only after the said exercise, the first respondent has arrived at the conclusion by giving a finding that the property claimed by the petitioners were not acquired by the land acquisition proceedings. It is pertinent to note that the first respondent has also given a specific finding to the effect that the fourth respondent has already sold the property even before passing the award in the land acquisition proceedings. It is relevant to state at this stage that in this matter only the second respondent has chosen to file a counter and in the said counter, there is not a whisper about the finding given by the first respondent to the effect that the property owned by the petitioners were not acquired under the land acquisition proceedings. The perusal of the entire counter filed by the second respondent reveals that the second respondent has justified only about his order dated 19.05.2004 while cancelling the patta granted to the petitioners. Therefore, it is crystal clear that a finding was rendered in favour of the claim of the petitioners on the basis of the perusal of the records and as such, there is absolutely no necessity for remanding the matter for further enquiry. It is observed by the first respondent that through the further enquiry, questions relating to the title of the subject property should be gone into on the basis of the documents and other records. This Court is of the considered view that such an exercise would certainly amount to exceeding the jurisdiction of the Revenue Authorities. It is well settled by the decisions of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court that disputes regarding the title could be gone into only by a competent Civil Court and not by the Revenue Authorities. 14. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the following decisions. 14.1. The Hon'ble Apex Court in SurajBhan and Others Vs. It is well settled by the decisions of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court that disputes regarding the title could be gone into only by a competent Civil Court and not by the Revenue Authorities. 14. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the following decisions. 14.1. The Hon'ble Apex Court in SurajBhan and Others Vs. Financial Commissioner reported in 2007 (6) SCC 186 , has held as hereunder:- "8. So far as mutation is concerned, it is clear that entry has been made and mutation has been effected in revenue records by the Tahsildar on the basis of an application made by Respondent 5 herein and his name has been entered in record-of-rights on the basis of the will said to have been executed by Ratni Devi. In our opinion, therefore, it cannot be said that by entering the name of Respondent 5 in revenue records, any illegality had been committed by the Tahsildar. It is true that no notice was issued to the appellants but the Tahsildar had taken the action on the basis of will said to have been executed by deceased Ratni Devi in favour of Respondent 5. The said order has been confirmed by the Collector as also by the Financial Commissioner. When the grievance was made against the said action by filing a Writ Petition, the High Court also confirmed all the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities under the Act. We see no infirmity so far as that part of the order is concerned. 9. ...It is well settled that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights. It is settled law that entries in the revenue records or jamabandi have only "fiscal purpose" i.e. payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. So far as title to the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil court." 14.2. A Division Bench of this Court also taken a similar view in KuppuswamiNainar Vs. The District Revenue Officer reported in 1995 (1) MLJ 426 . The Division Bench has held as hereunder: "3. No provision is brought to our notice in the Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue taking away the jurisdiction of the civil court to adjudicate upon the question of title relating to immovable property. The District Revenue Officer reported in 1995 (1) MLJ 426 . The Division Bench has held as hereunder: "3. No provision is brought to our notice in the Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue taking away the jurisdiction of the civil court to adjudicate upon the question of title relating to immovable property. Revenue Officers in a patta proceedings may express their views on the question of title, but such expression of opinion or decision is not conclusive and it is only intended to support their decision for granting patta. Ultimately, it is the civil court which has to adjudicate the question as to whether the person claiming patta is the title-holder of the land. Even if the revenue authorities decide the question of title, that will not in any way affect the jurisdiction of the civil court, which has to decide the question without reference to the decision of the revenue authorities. 4. Now the question for consideration is, having regard to the fact that the District Revenue Officer has expressed his opinion on the question of title whether the order under question should be interfered with. It may be pointed out here that in a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution the question of title regarding immovable property cannot properly be gone into, because a mass of evidence may be required for adjudicating the question of title. Even if we are to interfere with the order under appeal, it is the other party, who has to go to a civil court and establish title. As far as the exercise of jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution is concerned, it does not matter to it whether 'A' party goes to civil court or 'B' party. Therefore, we are of the view that the question of title has to be decided by the civil court, ...." 14.3. A learned Single Judge of this Court subsequently followed the Division Bench of this Court, as stated above, in the decision in ChockkappanVs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2004 (1) CTC 136 and took a similar view. 14.4. Again, in a latest decision, a Division Bench of this Court, in VishwasFootwear Company v. The District Collector, Kancheepuram reported in 2011 (5) CTC 94 , has held as hereunder: "19. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2004 (1) CTC 136 and took a similar view. 14.4. Again, in a latest decision, a Division Bench of this Court, in VishwasFootwear Company v. The District Collector, Kancheepuram reported in 2011 (5) CTC 94 , has held as hereunder: "19. Nevertheless, the core question involved in the Writ Petition is as to whether in the given facts and circumstances of the case, it could be entertained in the event Patta has been granted in favour of a particular individual. On the strength of the title or possession, if any other person makes an Application to the Revenue Divisional Officer for cancellation of that Patta and in the event both the individuals claim title over the property, the Revenue Divisional Officer cannot adjudicate such disputed questions and accepting the case of the other person, he cannot cancel the Patta.The right course to be adopted by the Revenue Divisional Officer in such case is only to refer the Applicant who has come before him seeking for cancellation of Patta to Civil Court, especially when his claim is disputed by the individual who is holding the Patta granted by the Competent Authority. In the event the Revenue Divisional Officer by exceeding his jurisdiction decides the question of title and cancels the Patta, certainly the aggrieved person can approach this Court by way of a Writ Petition on the ground that the Revenue Divisional Officer was not competent to go into the title.The question of alternative remedy is not available to the aggrieved person as for the very same reason the District Collector also cannot go into the disputed question regarding the title or possession, as the case may be, in the event an Appeal is filed. (Emphasis supplied by this Court) Ultimately, the Division Bench of this Court in the said decision has held as hereunder: "21. (Emphasis supplied by this Court) Ultimately, the Division Bench of this Court in the said decision has held as hereunder: "21. In the light of the judgments in KuppuswamiNainar's case and Chockkappan'scase, the person who has applied to the Revenue Divisional Officer for cancellation of Patta should be directed to approach the Civil Court to establish the title and for seeking the grant of Patta after cancelling the Patta granted in favour of the Appellant-Company..." The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court in the decisions cited supra are squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case, as in this case also, admittedly, the patta was issued in favour of the first petitioner and his wife and the fourth respondent sought for the relief of cancellation of patta and her claim was accepted by the second respondent, namely, the Revenue Divisional Officer as per the order dated 19.05.2004 and the said order was challenged by the petitioners by filing an appeal before the first respondent and the said appeal was allowed and the order of the second respondent was set aside. However, the first respondent remanded the matter for further enquiry, observing that the matter regarding the disputed question of title should be gone into by the second respondent herein. This Court is of the considered view that the impugned order of the first respondent, insofar as the same relates to remanding the matter for fresh enquiry for the above said purpose, would certainly amount to exceeding the jurisdiction of the Revenue Authorities and such exercise could be undertaken only by a competent Civil Court as per the principle laid down in the above cited decisions. 15. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 30.05.2005 in its proceedings in Na.Ka.25528/04/B3 insofar as the said order relates to remanding the matter for further enquiry, as stated above, is set aside and in respect of other aspects, the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 30.05.2005 is hereby confirmed. It is made clear that the impugned order passed by the second respondent is not at all disturbed by this Court. 16. It is made clear that the impugned order passed by the second respondent is not at all disturbed by this Court. 16. The next crucial question arises for the consideration of this Court is in respect of the sustainability of the order passed by the third respondent dated 29.07.2006 granting patta in favour of the fifth respondent herein. At this juncture, this Court is constrained to state that the passing of the said order was found only by this Court at the time of perusal of the records produced before this Court. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners are totally unaware about passing of the said order and as such, they have not challenged the said order. This Court was shocked and surprised to see that in spite of the order of interim stay was in operation as the same was granted as early as on 02.01.2006, the third respondent has such an audacity to pass an order of granting patta in favour of the fifth respondent herein. In view of the said circumstances, this Court passed an order dated 23.12.2010 by passing the order of suo-motu impleadment of the fifth respondent herein and further directed the third respondent to file an affidavit explaining under what circumstances the patta was transferred in favour of the fifth respondent and to show cause why this Court should not initiate contempt proceedings against him. Thereafter, this Court passed an order dated 25.04.2011 directing the District Collector to verify whether the order of granting the relief of interim stay has been served on the third respondent and also whether during the currency of the said order, the third respondent has proceeded further in the matter or not. 17. The learned Additional Government Pleader today produced the letter of the District Collector dated 05.07.2011 as per his proceedings in Rc.No.4654/2006/B3. The perusal of the said communication reveals that pursuant to the orders passed by this Court dated 25.04.2011, the District Collector inspected the connected records at the Ambattur Taluk Office and it is specifically stated by the District Collector that the Tahsildhar has signed the RPAD register on 27.01.2006 and as such, the Tahsildhar was having knowledge of the order of interim stay granted by this Court on 27.01.2006. It is pertinent to note that in the said communication, the District Collector stated that the Tahsildhar had reported that the file at the Taluk Office was not available and efforts are taken to trace out the same. It is also made clear by the District Collector that the District Revenue Officer has not passed any order directing the third respondent, namely, the Tahsildhar to process further during the currency of interim stay granted by this Court. It is stated by the District Collector that a show cause notice has been issued against all the concerned officials, who have dealt with the file and who have involved in patta transfer in spite of the operation of interim stay granted by this Court. 18. The yet another important factor to be borne in mind of this Court is to the effect that even in the counter filed by the second respondent, it is specifically stated that the file relating to patta issued in favour of the petitioner and his wife was not produced by the Tahsildhar, Ambattur. It is also pertinent to note that the order granting patta in favour of the fifth respondent was passed not only behind the back of the petitioner, but also behind the back of the fourth respondent. The fifth respondent in his counter stated that he has no knowledge about the fourth respondent preferring an application to the third respondent for grant of patta in her name and the said factor was not disclosed at the time of his purchase on 31.01.2005. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners by producing the certified copy of the sale deed that the sale deed executed in favour of the fifth respondent herein was released only on 21.03.2007 and even before the said release of the sale deed, an order was passed by the third respondent by granting patta in favour of the fifth respondent. The perusal of the certified copy of the sale deed executed in favour of the fifth respondent would also disclose that the fifth respondent was aware about the patta earlier issued in favour of the petitioners and thereafter, the same was cancelled as per the order passed by the second respondent. The perusal of the certified copy of the sale deed executed in favour of the fifth respondent would also disclose that the fifth respondent was aware about the patta earlier issued in favour of the petitioners and thereafter, the same was cancelled as per the order passed by the second respondent. Therefore, the fifth respondent cannot plead any ignorance about the earlier happenings and sequence of events regarding the patta issued in favour of the petitioners and the subsequent events. 19. It is also to be stated that inspite of the specific direction given to the third respondent as per the order of this Court dated 23.12.2010 to file an affidavit explaining the circumstances under which he has granted the relief of patta in favour of the fifth respondent, the third respondent has not filed any affidavit till date. As already pointed out the third respondent has also withheld the important and relevant files relating to the issue of patta and the District Collector has issued show cause notice to all concerned officials calling for their explanation. The above factors would make it crystal clear that the third respondent has passed an order granting patta in favour of the fifth respondent in a clandestine manner behind the back of all the other higher officials namely Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Revenue Officer and without issuing notice to the petitioners and the fourth respondent herein. Though the learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent contended that the order passed by the third respondent dated 29.07.2006 granting patta in favour of the fifth respondent is not challenged by the writ petitioners, I am unable to countenance such contention for the simple reason that the petitioners are totally unaware about the passing of such order. As already pointed out, only this Court, on perusal of the documents produced before this Court, found the passing of such order by the third respondent herein. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the order passed by the third respondent dated 29.07.2006 granting patta in favour of the fifth respondent is nothing but an illegal order and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this Court is constrained to set aside the order passed by the third respondent dated 29.07.2006, granting patta in favour of the fifth respondent herein. 20. Accordingly, this Court is constrained to set aside the order passed by the third respondent dated 29.07.2006, granting patta in favour of the fifth respondent herein. 20. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the findings and conclusions arrived by this Court is to be summed up hereunder: (1) the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 30.05.2005 in its proceedings in Na.Ka.25528/04/B3 insofar as the said order relates to remanding the matter for further enquiry regarding the dispute in respect of the question of title, is hereby set aside and in respect of the other aspects, the impugned order passed by the first respondent is hereby confirmed ; (2) It is made clear that on the basis of quashing the order passed by the first respondent dated 30.5.2005, the patta issued in favour of the first petitioner and his wife by the Special Thasildhar Ambattur by assigning T.S.No.25 in respect of an extent of 23 cents purchased by the first petitioner and his wife is to be restored by the third respondent, namely, the Thasildhar by issuing patta in favour of the first petitioner within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; (3) The order passed by the third respondent dated 29.07.2006, granting patta in favour of the fifth respondent herein is set aside; (4) In view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in VishwasFootwear Company v. The District Collector, Kancheepuram reported in 2011 (5) CTC 94 (cited supra), it is made clear that in the event of seeking the relief of cancellation of patta issued in favour of the first petitioner, the fourth respondent or the fifth respondent or anyone shall only approach the competent Civil Court to establish their title ; (5) Finally it is made clear that in the event of anyone including the fourth respondent or the fifth respondent approaching the competent Civil Court for establishing their title over the subject property, the Civil Court shall decide the case on the basis of the evidence produced by the respective parties and on merits, without being influenced by any observations made in this order. 21. With these directions, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

V. K. Subramaniam v. District Revenue Officer, Tiruvallur