Judgment :- 1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 13.1.2011 passed by the 5th respondent/The District Collector, Kancheepuram District and the consequential order of the 11th respondent/The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram Division, Kancheepuram District dated 16.8.2011 and direct the respondents to act pursuant to the petitioners application for patta transfer dated 31.12.2008. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition as per the pleadings of the petitioner are as follows: (a) Petitioner is a Group of Company, involved in manufacturing activities including automobile and components, engineering products, building products, cement, castings, electrical pans, lighting products, etc., and it has turnover in excess of US$ 1.16 billions with human resources comprising of over 22,000 employees worldwide. (b) It is claimed in the affidavit that the petitioner purchased property measuring total extent of 67.14 grounds in R.S.NO.512, Contonment of St.Thomas Mount from M/s.Hindustan Motors Limited/12th respondent herein, through four different sale deeds vide Document Nos.341/2006 dated 27.2.2006; 1655/2006 dated 7.8.2006; 742/2007 dated 30.7.2007; and 1372/2010 dated 31.8.2010, all registered in the office of the Joint Sub-Registrar-II, Saidapet. On 31.12.2008 the petitioner made two applications for transferring patta in its name. It also purchased another extent of property being land and building, measuring an extent of 16.99 grounds in R.S.No.512 (part), St.Thomas Mount contonment, Chennai through sale deed dated 31.8.2010 registered as Document No.1732/2010. (c) Due to traffic volumes on the roads of Chennai, the Government of Tamil Nadu announced a project by name "Chennai Metro Rail" and the Government has created a special purpose vehicle implementing Chennai Metro Rail Project (CMRP). The Chennai Metro Rail Limited (CMRL)/7th respondent herein was incorporated on 3.12.2007 under the Companies Act, 1956. It is a joint venture of Government of India and Government of Tamil Nadu with equal equity holdings. The above project was proposed to be implemented by acquiring lands from land owners through negotiations and upon negotiations failing, to invoke the appropriate acquisition laws to acquire the said lands. (d) CMRL issued a letter on 25.11.2008 to the petitioner stating that it intends to procure lands required for Chennai Metro Rail Project through negotiations from willing owners and the petitioner was asked to furnish documents of title pertaining to the petitioners property for determining the value. Petitioner furnished the said documents with a covering letter on 2.2.2009, which was acknowledged by the CMRL on 3.2.2009. Petitioner furnished the said documents with a covering letter on 2.2.2009, which was acknowledged by the CMRL on 3.2.2009. The petitioner was willing to negotiate and transfer the required lands in favour of the 7th respondent (CMRL) on paying proper market value. (e) The land required for Chennai Metro Rail Project is an extent of 2477.5 sq.mtrs in S.No.512 G.S.T.Road, out of the total extent of 3 acres and 31,051 sq.ft. According to the petitioner it is in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the subject lands. Before its purchase the land was owned by the M/s.Hindustan Motors Limited. M/s.Hindustan Motors Limited purchased the property from M/s.Blackwood Hodge (India) Private Limited through a sale deed dated 21.3.1967 registered as document No.1463/1967 and the said M/s.Blackwood Hodge (India) Private Limited purchased the property from one Hakim Abdul Sattar Khan through sale deed dated 23.8.1957 registered as Document No.2286/1957 on the file of the Sub Registrar Office, Saidapet. (f) According to the petitioner, the Hindustan Motors Limited applied for transfer of patta and obtained patta in their name bearing patta No.907 dated 26.2.1977, which was issued by the additional Head Quarters Tahsildar, Saidapet. It is also claimed in the affidavit that as per the records of Contonment Board, the property is in possession of the petitioner and its predecessors in title. The Contonment has muted the property in the name of M/s.Hindustan Motors Limited for tax purposes and building plan were sanctioned in the year 1978. The petitioner and its predecessors ownership is also claimed to be recognised by the Contonment as well as by the Government in the proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1978 by granting exemption by G.O.Ms.No.1920 Revenue Department dated 30.8.1990 etc. Petitioner claims that it is having records to show the payment of urban land tax from 1981 and its ownership right is fully recognised. (g) The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.43 Revenue Department dated 2.2.2011 stating that the Government is the owner of the subject land and the compensation payable to the land should be paid to the Government for taking over the land by the 7th respondent. The said Government Order was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.3277 of 2011 and the said Government order was set aside by this Court by order dated 25.4.2011 and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. The said Government Order was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.3277 of 2011 and the said Government order was set aside by this Court by order dated 25.4.2011 and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. It was further directed that the petitioner has to give an undertaking to receive the amount of compensation i.e, a sum of Rs.8,28,40,000/-, without prejudice to file necessary application for enhancement of compensation amount and also to hand over possession so as to enable the Chennai Metro Rail Project to go ahead. (h) As against the said order the State Government filed W.A.No.1937 of 2011 and the same is pending. According to the petitioner, during the course of the arguments in writ appeal, the Honourable First Bench was informed that this writ petition filed by the petitioner is pending and therefore the First bench by order dated 17.11.2011 directed this Court to dispose of the writ petition, preferably within a period of three weeks. Further direction was issued to the Government to deposit a sum of Rs.8,28,40,000/-with the Indian Bank, High Court Branch, Chennai-104, within one week, which shall be kept in deposit until further orders. Based on the said direction this writ petition is heard and disposed of by this order. (i) The contention raised in the writ petition is that the District Collector/5th respondent has given a direction to cancel the patta issued in favour of M/s.Hindustan Motors Limited after giving notice to the parties, based on which the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram/11th respondent herein by order dated 16.8.2011 directed the Tahsildar, Alandur/8th respondent herein to cancel the patta and make necessary changes in the revenue records and send a report. It is further contended, by virtue of the direction given by the District Collector, the Revenue Divisional Officer, who was bound by the direction, in turn, without looking into the documents and title deeds, has given a finding against the petitioner and ordered cancellation of patta and make necessary entries in the revenue records. (j) It is the further contention of the petitioner that one Revenue Divisional Officer issued notice and conducted hearing, who gave a report against the Government, who was subsequently transferred and another Revenue Divisional Officer was posted, who without hearing the petitioner and ignoring the earlier report, passed the impugned order. Therefore there is procedural irregularity in passing the impugned order. Therefore there is procedural irregularity in passing the impugned order. (k) It is also the contention of the petitioner that the patta granted in favour of the erstwhile owner viz., M/s.Hindustan Motors in the year 1977 has not been challenged by anyone and the whole action is initiated based on the application of the petitioner seeking to transfer the patta in its name and the said procedure adopted is without jurisdiction. 3. The Tahsildar, Alandur/8th respondent herein has filed counter affidavit contending as follows: (i) No patta was issued in the name of petitioner company so far and the patta issued in the name of predecessor of the petitioner company was cancelled on the ground that the patta was issued to Government Time Expired Lease Land. Patta was issued on mistaken identity in the year 1977 and the same is rectified now. Petitioner is having alternate remedy of preferring appeal against the order and without filing appeal petitioner cannot file the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternate remedy. (ii) The land in S.No.512 measuring an extent of 3 acres and 31,051 sq.ft. of St.Thomas Mount village are classified as Time Expired Lease Land in the village account and revenue records and the said land is a poromboke land vested with the Government. The 7th respondent submitted a requisition for alienation of 1924 sq.mts for CMRL project by letter dated 14.7.2010. The District Collector, Kancheepuram called for necessary alienation proceedings through letter dated 20.7.2010. The Tahsildar, Alandur submitted alienation proposal on 13.9.2010, which was recommended to the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk on 11.11.2010. (iii) The District Revenue Officer also called upon the petitioner Company to produce records for proving its ownership. The Company appeared before the District Revenue officer and produced their defence. Petitioner company failed to prove their predecessors ownership/title continuously for the period from 1907 to 1957 and the document produced will not confer any legal right and do not bind the Government. The District Revenue Officer has observed that the land is a poromboke land and patta was issued mistakenly and the Government has accorded temporary permission to the CMRL to enter upon the land, by G.O.Ms.No.43 Planning Development and Special Initiative Department, dated 2.2.2011. Even though the said Government Order is set aside and remanded, W.A.No.1927 of 2011 is filed by the Government and the same is pending. Even though the said Government Order is set aside and remanded, W.A.No.1927 of 2011 is filed by the Government and the same is pending. (iv) It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner submitted a petition to the Commissioner of Land Administration to consider the issue of patta, who in turn forwarded the same to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram, through District Collector, Kancheepuram to conduct enquiry. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram conducted enquiry and petitioner also produced records. (v) It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the original lease was granted by East India Company in favour of one Gatheeja Begum Sahiba on 27.4.1906 upto 15.3.1907, which was not renewed. The Government took a policy decision not to renew the lease and ordered restoration and resumption of such lands. The lessor at one stage had failed to surrender the land to the Government but some party sold the land to persons, who claimed to be the first vendor. The said irregularity was repeated and finally vested with the petitioner. Based on the said sale transactions the patta was managed to be obtained in the year 1977, which was issued on mistaken identity. (vi) The classification of the land stands as poromboke land in the revenue register. The Revenue Divisional Officer having found that the land is a poromboke land, initiated the process of enquiry to cancel the irregular/illegal patta. The original lessor had suppressed the fact of time expired lease and sold the land for monetary gain which will not bind the Government. The grant of exemption from Urban Land Ceiling Act and levy of Urban Land Tax were done based on production of irregular patta. (vii) The previous records were traced including the original classification. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram, after giving opportunity to the petitioner to defend his claim, passed the order on 16.8.2011 stating that the land in question is a poromboke land and cancelled patta No.907 issued in favour of the petitioners predecessor in the year 1977. The said order was served on the petitioner on 3.9.2011, against which this writ petition is filed. (viii) It is repeatedly stated in the counter affidavit that the patta transfer effected on 26.2.1977 in favour of M/s.Hindustan Motors Limited, was by mistake. Petitioner had purchased land from M/s.Hindustan Motors Limited and applied for transfer of patta. The said order was served on the petitioner on 3.9.2011, against which this writ petition is filed. (viii) It is repeatedly stated in the counter affidavit that the patta transfer effected on 26.2.1977 in favour of M/s.Hindustan Motors Limited, was by mistake. Petitioner had purchased land from M/s.Hindustan Motors Limited and applied for transfer of patta. The petitioner having purchased land without title from the said Hindustan Motors, it cannot claim any right over the property. (ix) The Contonment Board records classifying the land as B2 patta was based on the sale deeds. The approval of plan granted by Contonment Board was without verification of the old revenue records. The plan approval itself is illegal. The mistake done earlier was set right by not ordering transfer of patta. The order of the Collector is only a direction to Revenue Divisional Officer to conduct enquiry by giving opportunity to the occupier of the land and pass orders restoring the government land. As the then Revenue Divisional Officer had not passed order, he sent a report to the District Revenue Officer on the outcome of the enquiry and the present Revenue Divisional Officer, after verifying the records has passed the final orders. Pointing out all these facts, the 8th respondent has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. The 9th respondent/Contonment Board filed a separate counter affidavit stating that the subject property is classified as B2 land, under the management of the State Government and the Tamil Nadu government is vested with power under the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983, based on which patta was issued in the year 1977 and further proceedings were taken by the Contonment Board. 5. The 12th respondent also filed separate counter affidavit stating that the 12th respondent purchased the property in the year 1967 and was in continuous and uninterrupted possession with full rights of ownership and at no point of time anyone claimed the property as poromboke land. Patta was granted not in the year 1977, but in the year 1955 based on the sale deed issued in favour of the 12th respondent. 6. Mr.Sathish Parasaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, relying on the voluminous documents submitted that the subject property was purchased under registered sale deeds based on the patta issued in favour of M/s.Hindustan Motors Limited and the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser. 6. Mr.Sathish Parasaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, relying on the voluminous documents submitted that the subject property was purchased under registered sale deeds based on the patta issued in favour of M/s.Hindustan Motors Limited and the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser. The Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.43 Planning Development and Special Initiative Department, dated 2.2.2011 was not accepted as valid order by this Court and a direction was issued to the 7th respondent to pay the amount of compensation to the petitioner and get possession of the land. The learned counsel also cited the decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2011 (5) CTC 94 (Vishwas Footwear Company Ltd. v. The District Collector, Kancheepuram) and contended that the Revenue Divisional Officer cannot decide title disputes between the parties and parties should be directed to approach the competent civil court for adjudicating the title disputes. The learned counsel pointed out that in the said judgment the Division Bench by judgment dated 28.7.2011 not agreed with the decision of the learned single Judge in directing the petitioner therein to approach the Civil Court and held that the Revenue Divisional Officer or the District Collector cannot go into the disputed question regarding title. The Division Bench cancelled the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer holding that the same is without jurisdiction and restored the patta granted in favour of the appellant and directed the parties to approach the civil Court to establish title and to seek cancellation of patta. The said decision was subsequently followed by another Division Bench in the decision reported in 2011 (5) CTC 241 (C.Sabesan Chettiar v. The District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore District). The learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1969 (1) SCR 245 : AIR 1969 SC 48 (Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. Union of India) for the proposition that the higher authority cannot give direction to a quasi-judicial authority to act in a particular manner while deciding the dispute and the quasi judicial authority must act independently and impartially. 7. Mr.A.Navaneethakrishnan, learned Advocate General, on the other hand submitted that the writ petition filed is not maintainable and if the petitioner is aggrieved about the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, it can only approach the Civil Court to establish its title. 7. Mr.A.Navaneethakrishnan, learned Advocate General, on the other hand submitted that the writ petition filed is not maintainable and if the petitioner is aggrieved about the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, it can only approach the Civil Court to establish its title. The learned Advocate General also submitted that the order passed by this Court setting aside the Government Order is pending in W.A.No.1927 of 2011 and therefore the writ petition is not maintainable and the same is to be dismissed. 8. Mr.C.Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the 9th respondent submitted that classification of land as B2 land cannot be taken advantage of by the petitioner as B2 land includes land under the State Government land leased out to individuals by State Government and land owned by the individuals. 9. Mr.R.Thyagarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for 7th respondent submitted that it has to be given possession of the land of an extent of 2477.5 sq.mtrs for continuing the Chennai Metro Rail Project and as directed by the First Bench of this Court, the compensation amount is already deposited. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that if this writ petition is disposed of, the First Bench can be moved for getting appropriate direction in the pending writ petition. 10. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsels and Senior Counsel appearing for the respective respondents. 11. It is the contention of the petitioner that it has purchased the subject lands by sale deeds for valuable consideration and it is in continuous and uninterrupted possession. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioners predecessors in title viz., M/s.Hindustan Motors Limited and M/s.Blackwood Hodge (India) Pvt. Ltd. have sold the property as owner and not as lessees of the Government. It is also the case of the petitioner that patta was issued in favour of M/s.Hindustan Motors Ltd in patta No.907 on 23.2.1977 by Tahsildar, Saidapet. The said patta was not challenged by any person, including the Government by filing appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, District Revenue Officer, or before the Government. It is also the case of the petitioner that patta was issued in favour of M/s.Hindustan Motors Ltd in patta No.907 on 23.2.1977 by Tahsildar, Saidapet. The said patta was not challenged by any person, including the Government by filing appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, District Revenue Officer, or before the Government. It is the further case of the petitioner that after the purchase of the properties it has applied for transfer of patta and the impugned order was passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram, solely on the direction issued by the District Collector, Kancheepuram through his proceedings dated 13.1.2011. In the said proceedings the District Collector directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram to take immediate steps to cancel the patta and the said order was passed by the District Collector without any notice to the petitioner. 12. The then Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram conducted enquiry after giving notice to the petitioner and submitted a report stating his inability to pass orders. After transfer of the said Revenue Divisional Officer, the subsequently posted Revenue Divisional Officer, without conducting any enquiry passed the order, which is in violation of the well accepted principle that a person hears must decide in terms of the judgments reported in (2011) 2 SCC 258 (Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association v. Designated Authority) and also against statutory provision under Section 10(3)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983, which reads as follows: "10(3)(a) Before passing an order on an application under sub-section (1), the Tahsildar shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed and shall also give reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned to make their representations either orally or in writing. If the Tahsildar decides that any modifications should be made in respect of entries in the Patta Pass Book, he shall pass an order accordingly and shall make such consequential changes in the Patta Pass Book as appear to him to be necessary for giving effect to his order." In the above cited decision reported in (2011) 2 SCC 258 the Honourable Supreme Court considered similar provision under the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 and in paragraphs 83 and 84 held thus, "83. The procedure prescribed in the 1995 Rules imposes a duty on the DA to afford to all the parties, who have filed objections and adduced evidence, a personal hearing before taking a final decision in the matter. Even written arguments are no substitute for an oral hearing. A personal hearing enables the authority concerned to watch the demeanour of the witnesses, etc. and also clear up his doubts during the course of the arguments. Moreover, it was also observed in Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. A.P.SRTC ( AIR 1959 SC 308 ), if one person hears and other decides, then personal hearing becomes an empty formality. 84. In the present case, admittedly, the entire material had been collected by the predecessor of the DA; he had allowed the interested parties and/or their representatives to present the relevant information before him in terms of Rule 6(6) but the final findings in the form of an order were recorded by the successor DA, who had no occasion to hear the appellants herein. In our opinion, the final order passed by the new DA offends the basic principle of natural justice. Thus, the impugned notification having been issued on the basis of the final findings of the DA, who failed to follow the principles of natural justice, cannot be sustained. It is quashed accordingly." (Emphasis Supplied) 13. The petitioner has filed an application seeking transfer of patta. While considering the said request, the District Collector has given a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram to cancel the patta already issued, which is to be treated as preemptive action/pre-judging the issue. 14. When a dispute is raised regarding the title of the property, the parties can establish their right only before the Civil Court by adducing evidence, oral and documentary, to arrive at a just decision. (a) The Division Bench of this Court in 2011 (5) CTC 94 (Vishwas Footwear Company Ltd. v. The District Collector, Kancheepuram) considered the above said issue elaborately and quashed the order of Revenue Divisional Officer cancelling the patta issued by the Tahsildar and directed the parties to approach the Civil Court to establish title. (b) Same view is taken in the subsequent Division Bench decision reported in 2011 (5) CTC 241 (C.Sabesan Chettiar v. The District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore District). 15. (b) Same view is taken in the subsequent Division Bench decision reported in 2011 (5) CTC 241 (C.Sabesan Chettiar v. The District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore District). 15. In the light of the said judgments, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the 5th respondent dated 13.1.2011 and the consequential order passed by the 11th respondent dated 16.8.2011 cannot be sustained and accordingly they are set aside. As the title of the petitioner is now disputed, the prayer sought for to transfer patta in favour of the petitioner by application dated 31.12.2008 cannot be ordered. The said issue is well settled in the following decisions: (a) In the decision reported in (2006) 4 SCC 501 (P.R.Murlidharan v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar) the Supreme Court held that jurisdiction under Article 226 would remain effective and meaningful only when it is exercised prudently and in appropriate situation, and writ of mandamus cannot be sought for, especially when determination of the questions involved did not merely involve interpretation of documents alone, but require adducing of oral evidence, and writ proceedings cannot be a substitute for a civil suit. (b) In the decisions reported in AIR 1976 SC 475 : (1976) 1 SCC 292 (Arya Vyasa Sabha and Others v. Commissioner of Hindu Charitable and Religious Institutions & Endowments, Hyderabad and Others); AIR 2003 SC 1060 : (2003) 2 MLJ 49 : (2003) 4 SCC 317 (Rourkela Shramik Sangh v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. And Another); (2001) 7 SCC 1 (Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers); (2006) 9 SCC 256 (Himmat Singh v. State of Haryana and Others); (2007) 7 MLJ 687 (Food Corporation of India v. Harmesh Chand); 2005 (5) CTC 695 (SC) (S.D.O.Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. v. Timudu Oram) etc., also the Honourable Supreme Court held that disputed facts cannot be decided in writ petition and parties can approach the appropriate forum. 16. In fine, the writ petition is partly allowed on the above terms. The observations made in this order need not be construed as accepting the case of the petitioner/contesting respondents, in any future proceedings which may be initiated by either party. There is no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.