Judgment : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent. 2. To avoid the avoidable delay, notice to the second respondent is dispensed with by this Court. 3. According to the petitioner, the property comprised in S.No.44/2 measuring an extent of 41 cents, situated in Vellikurichi Village, Vellikurichi Group, Manamadurai Taluk, Sivagangai District was originally owned by his grandmother and grandfather namely late Tmt.Rakkammal and late Puragudaya Thevar. They have purchased the said property by means of a registered sale deed dated 30.04.1943. It is represented on behalf of the petitioner that the revenue records, patta, Settlement Land Register, A-Register etc., do stand in the name of his grandmother and grandfather, the original purchasers. Thus, the possession and enjoyment of the said properties were vested with them and they enjoyed the properties till their life time. 4. It comes to be known that the petitioner's father (Kandasamy Thevar) was a sole son of his grandfather and grandmother and on their demise, the petitioner's father, Kandasamy Thevar inherited the said property and enjoyed the same till his life time. The petitioner's father died leaving behind himself and his brother Puragudaya Thevar to succeed the above property. After the demise of his father, both the petitioner and his brother Puragudaya Thevar sub-divided the said property in S.No.44/2 into S.No.44/2A and 44/2B. In fact, the second respondent owns a property in S.No.42/3 adjacent to the petitioner's property. He has no nexus to their property either in original S.No.44/2 or S.No.44/2A and 44/2B, sub-divided between him and his brother. 5. The stand of the petitioner is that the husband of the second respondent namely Sivagurunathan even without any application to the Tahsildar, without any sale transaction or revenue records appeared to have obtained a fraudulent patta, on the basis of fake or fictitious kist receipt to their property, in collusion with the Village Administrative Officer. The petitioner and his brother filed an appeal in Na.Ka.A3-3459-2011 and the same is pending. During the pendency of the appeal before the first respondent, the second respondent's husband died. Later, an application was filed to implead the second respondent and subsequently, the said application was allowed. 6. The petitioner and his brother filed an appeal in Na.Ka.A3-3459-2011 and the same is pending. During the pendency of the appeal before the first respondent, the second respondent's husband died. Later, an application was filed to implead the second respondent and subsequently, the said application was allowed. 6. The real grievance of the petitioner is that the appeal in Na.Ka.A3-3459-2011 on the file of the first respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai is pending ever since December 2010 on the file of the first respondent till date (Although the said appeal got numbered during the year 2011) and as on date, the said appeal is not yet disposed off. Even after preferring the appeal, the petitioner is not able to see any result on the appeal filed by him and as on date, nearly three years have elapsed from the date of filing of the appeal, projected by the petitioner before the first respondent. 7. In view of the fact that the petitioner is only seeking a relief of passing of an order by this Court in directing the first respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai to dispose of the statutory appeal filed by him in Na.Ka.A3-3459-2011, this Court, to prevent an aberration of justice and to promote the substantial cause of justice, directs the first respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai to dispose of the pending appeal in Na.Ka.A3-3459-2011, filed by the petitioner on merits within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (Of course, after providing enough opportunities to the petitioner and others concerned, if any by adhering to the principles of natural justice.). 8. It is made clear that the first respondent is to pass appropriate orders on the appeal preferred by the petitioner and admittedly the same being pending on his file, in dispassionate manner and uninfluenced by any one of the observations made by this Court in the present writ petition. 9. With the aforesaid directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.