Judgment : 1. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. Petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order of the first respondent dated 19.11.2012 and to direct the third respondent to grant ryotwari patta in favour of the petitioners by considering their representation dated 16.08.2012. 3. When the matter came up for hearing on 30.04.2014, this Court passed the following order : “Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the revision filed before the first respondent came to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches and would submit that before passing the impugned order petitioner has not been afforded with any opportunity and placed reliance upon the order passed in W.P.No.4980 of 2012. Learned Government Advocate appearing for official respondents seeks to file counter. Call on 17.06.2014.” 4. Despite the time granted, even today, no counter affidavit has been filed. The learned Additional Government Pleader has made submissions on merits. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue involved in the writ petition is covered by the decision of this Court in W.P.No.4980 of 2012 dated 09.03.2012. It is submitted that under the statute, no time limit is prescribed for making a request for the grant of patta. Mere length of delay is immaterial and in the absence of any third party right getting accrued, the respondents ought to have decided the request on merits. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that considering the huge delay in making such request, no interference is required. 6. Admittedly, the request made by the petitioners has not been considered on merits. The impugned order does not indicate as to whether any claim by the third party has crept in. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to go into the said issue. Considering the very same issue, this Court in W.P.No.4980 of 2012 dated 09.03.2012, was pleased to pass the following order, after placing reliance upon the earlier decisions: “4. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset would refer to the impugned order dated 31.01.2012, wherein his request for grant of patta has been summarily rejected on the ground that any application filed beyond 20.08.1987 would be rejected as time barred. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset would refer to the impugned order dated 31.01.2012, wherein his request for grant of patta has been summarily rejected on the ground that any application filed beyond 20.08.1987 would be rejected as time barred. He also points out that when a similar order of rejection was questioned by a person like that of the petitioner herein before this Court, this Court by a detailed order, set aside the same and remanded the matter to the authorities concerned with a direction to consider the application without reference to the delay. Therefore, he submits that this order is liable to be interfered with. 5. I find that the rejection has been made only on the ground that the application has been filed beyond the time. In this connection I refer to the order passed by this Court on 21.02.2012 in W.P.No.3989 of 2012, wherein this Court had an occasion to deal with a similar order of rejection and set aside the order, after finding that the Tamilnadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, does not prescribe any time limit for filing a claim petition for the purpose of issuance of patta. Therefore, when the application filed by the petitioner herein for patta has been rejected as it is time barred, the order suffers from patent irregularity. Further the order of rejection has been passed without hearing the petitioner concerned. 6. Therefore, in the light of the order passed by this Court on 21.02.2012 in W.P.No.3989 of 2012, this Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 31.01.2012 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the first respondent with a direction to consider the application afresh and in accordance with law after affording opportunity to the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of a order, without rejecting on the same ground of limitation once again. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.” 7. In the light of the decision referred supra, the order impugned in this writ petition is set aside and the petitioner is directed to resubmit the papers within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.” 7. In the light of the decision referred supra, the order impugned in this writ petition is set aside and the petitioner is directed to resubmit the papers within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, the second respondent is directed to decide the application on merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks thereafter. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.