Judgment : M. Jaichandren, J. 1. Heard Mr.M.Ajmalkhan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.B.Pugalendhi, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for and quash the impugned order passed by the second respondent, dated 04.08.2014. 3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that a Division Bench of this Court had passed an order, dated 20.02.2014, in W.P.(MD) No.2918 of 2014, directing the District Surveyor, to survey the property in question, in the presence of the petitioner and to submit a detailed report, to the second respondent. This Court had also directed the petitioner to submit an explanation to the second respondent setting out its claim. Thereafter, the second respondent had been directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. However, the second respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 04.08.2014, directing the petitioner to remove the encroachment caused by the petitioner in the Pikachiyar Odai Eri. 4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had further submitted that the report of the Assistant Director of Land Survey, had not been furnished to the petitioner before the impugned order had been passed by the second respondent. Therefore, there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order, by the second respondent. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the second respondent had considered the explanation submitted by the petitioner, to the earlier proceedings issued by the second respondent, in his letter, No.Ko.43/2013, dated 30.12.2013. The second respondent had also considered the report filed by the Assistant Director of Land Survey, which had been prepared after the survey had been completed in the presence of the petitioner, as per the direction issued by this Court, by its order, dated 20.02.2014, in W.P.(MD)No.2918 of 2014. The second respondent had issued the impugned order, dated 04.08.2014, considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and the report of the Assistant Director of Land Survey. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the second respondent. 6. The second respondent had issued the impugned order, dated 04.08.2014, considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and the report of the Assistant Director of Land Survey. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the second respondent. 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned, and on a perusal of the records available, it is noted that the second respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 04.08.2014, without a copy of the report of the Assistant Director of Land Survey, being furnished to the petitioner. Even though a copy of the report had been given to the petitioner, along with the impugned order, passed by the second respondent, dated 04.08.2014, it is clear that the petitioner did not have an opportunity to submit his explanation on the report filed by the Assistant Director of Land Survey. 7. In such circumstances, we find it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 04.08.2014, as it has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the impugned order, dated 04.08.2014, passed by the second respondent is set aside and the petitioner is directed to submit its explanation to the report filed by the Assistant Director of Land Survey, to the second respondent, within a period of fifteen days from today. On the submission of the explanation, by the petitioner, the second respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks thereafter. 8. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.