Judgment : The writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 14.09.2013 on the ground that the writ petitioner’s representation has been considered. 2. First of all, the petitioner had asked time for filing counter to the petitioner filed by the sixth respondent before the Revenue Divisional Officer, on 13.09.2014, but without granting time, straight away the impugned order has been passed on 14.09.2013 by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The first hearing was only on 12.09.2013. Further main ground of attack was that the Revenue Divisional Officer has gone in detail regarding the title of the property, when there is a civil suit is pending in O.S.No.144 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sivakasi. 3. As per the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in VISWAS FOOTWERE COMPANY LTD., V. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANCHIPURAM reported in 2011 (5) CTC 94 , the revenue authorities cannot decide the title of the property. On this score, the order is liable to be quashed, even though the other grounds stated that the petitioner transferred on 07.09.2013 and the relieving order was passed on 14.09.2013, which falls on Saturday. It was not seriously taken up, as the question of date of relieving is not properly proved before this Court. 4. The Learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent mainly would contend that the sixth respondent was given opportunity originally by virtue of two hearing dates. The first date was fixed on 12.09.2013 and it was adjourned to 13.09.2014 and thereafter only, on 14.09.2013 the impugned order has been passed. It is also admitted by the sixth respondent that the civil suit in O.S.No.144 of 2013 is filed by him and the petitioner is the defendant. 5. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate would submit that the Revenue Divisional Officer has passed the order on available records and sufficient opportunity was given. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State and the learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent. 7. The short point for consideration is whether the Revenue Divisional Officer while deciding the question of grant of patta, can go into the question of title, especially, when the civil suit is pending between the parties. 8. 7. The short point for consideration is whether the Revenue Divisional Officer while deciding the question of grant of patta, can go into the question of title, especially, when the civil suit is pending between the parties. 8. In view of the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2011 (5) CTC 94 (cited supra), it is no more res integra that the authorities cannot decided on the question of the title, especially when there is a civil dispute and a Civil case is pending. From the reading of the impugned order, the Revenue Divisional Officer has gone in detail regarding the title of the property, which is per se illegal, as per the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. As the other matters are not proved, they are not taken for consideration, on the basis that the Revenue Divisional Officer has exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the impugned order and further, on 13.09.2014, the petitioner has sought for time order was passed on 14.09.2013, without giving opportunity to the petitioner. 9. Taking into consideration of the above facts, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. In view of the fact that the civil suit in O.S.No.144 of 2013 is filed for declaration and for injunction, the parties will be definitely governed only by the out come of the civil suit. It is open to the parties to give necessary documents before the Court below. The order of the Revenue Divisional Officer will independently take a decision on the basis of the documents, even uninfluenced by the order of this Court. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.