JUDGMENT M. VENUGOPAL, J. 1. The Petitioner has focussed the instant Writ of Mandamus praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the 1st and 2nd Respondents to mutate the Revenue Records and issue Patta in her name and her children, to an extent of 1.250 cents of land in Re-Survey No. 156/3C2, Eraniel Village, Thuckalay Taluk, Kanyakumari District, based on his representation, dated 01.09.2014. 2. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urges before this Court that an extent of 1.250 cents of land in Re-Survey No. 156/3C2, Eraniel Village, Thuckalay Taluk, Kanyakumari District, absolutely belongs to her father-in-law Samikannu and her father-in-law had also died, during the year 1995. Her Husband viz. Ayyappan filed a Suit for partition in O.S. No. 457 of 1995, on the file of the Learned District Munsif, Eraniel, Kanyakumari District, against his two brothers viz. Gopalan and Patchaimal. After full contest, in the said Suit, a preliminary decree was passed on 07.02.1997. In fact, the trial Court, in the Preliminary Decree granted 1/3 shares to her husband and his two brothers in regard to Item Nos. 14 and 15 of the Suit scheduled properties. 3. That apart, the Petitioner's husband filed I.A. No. 614 of 2001 in O.S. No. 467 of 1995, on the file of trial Court for passing of a Final Decree and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and further, the Suit Schedule 15th item of property in S.F. No. 156/3C2 was allotted to her husband's share. It is to be remembered that a Final Decree was passed on 30.10.2003. From the date of passing of Final Decree, her husband was in separate possession and enjoyment of the said property. 4. When that be the facts situation and also that when Final Decree proceedings were pending one of the Petitioner's husband brother viz. Patchiamal sold the property, which was allotted to her Husband's share, to one Sajahan on 08.06.2001. Even though a Sale Deed was executed, the said Sajahan was never in possession and enjoyment of the property. 5. 4. When that be the facts situation and also that when Final Decree proceedings were pending one of the Petitioner's husband brother viz. Patchiamal sold the property, which was allotted to her Husband's share, to one Sajahan on 08.06.2001. Even though a Sale Deed was executed, the said Sajahan was never in possession and enjoyment of the property. 5. It comes to be known that the said Sajahan projected O.S. No. 231 of 2004 on the file of the Learned Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, Kanyakumari District, seeking a relief of declaration against the Petitioner's husband and his brother challenging the allotment of the aforesaid property, as her Husband's share in the Final Decree in O.S. No. 467 of 1995. The said Suit was dismissed on 23.02.2007. It is to be noted that no appeal was filed against the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S. No. 467 of 1995 till date. The Petitioner's Husband had expired on 06.07.2007 and he left behind him, the Petitioner, Son Vijin, minor daughters Vidya Rani and Nagakanni as his Legal Heirs and in short, the Petitioner and her children are enjoying the property as on date, as Legal Heirs. 6. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the 2nd Respondent Tahsildar, Kalkulam Taluk, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District had mutated the Revenue Records in the name of Sajahan and patta was transferred in his name in respect of the aforesaid property. The prime submission made on behalf of the Petitioner is that in terms of civil proceedings and especially, in the light of civil Court Judgment and Decree, the Petitioner and her 3 children are the owner of the property and as such, the patta ought to be transferred in her name. In this connection, the Petitioner has made oral representation to the first Respondent in person, on many occasions, but it proves futile. Ultimately, the Petitioner submitted a detailed representation, dated 01.09.2014, through RPAD for mutation of Patta in her name and her children. Notwithstanding the fact, her representation was acknowledged by the first Respondent the Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District, no action was taken to mutate the Revenue Records in the name of the Petitioner and her Children. As such, the Petitioner is constrained to approach this Court, by filing the present Writ of Mandamus. 7. Notwithstanding the fact, her representation was acknowledged by the first Respondent the Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District, no action was taken to mutate the Revenue Records in the name of the Petitioner and her Children. As such, the Petitioner is constrained to approach this Court, by filing the present Writ of Mandamus. 7. In view of the fact that the Petitioner in her detailed representation, dated 01.09.2014 had enclosed a photo copy of the Judgment in O.S. No. 467 of 1995, copy of Final Decree passed in I.A. No. 614 of 2001 in O.S. No. 467 of 1995, on the file of trial Court, copy of the Judgment in O.S. No. 231 of 2004, on the file of trial Court, Death Certificate of Ayappan and Legalheirship Certificate issued by the competent authority, this court opines that the Respondents have to consider the representation made by the Petitioner dated 01.09.2014 (together with enclosures) especially, keeping in view the relevant and necessary ingredients of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983 and the Rules made thereunder in 1985 in a Fair, Just and Dispassionate manner and further, the respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders on merits, of course, after providing necessary opportunities to the Petitioner and others concerned, by adhering to the principles of natural justice, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. With the aforesaid direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.