Judgment :- The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition praying to call for the records relating to the order dated 21.11.2005 passed by the first respondent in Roc.No.M4/89314 of 2005 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to retransfer patta in respect of the land comprised in R.S.No.697/10, Pacode Village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District. 2. The petitioner is the Temple represented by its fit person. According to the petitioner, the properties in question belongs to Temple. The land was originally leased out to one Daniel Nadar on 07.12.1951 for a period of nine years. The said Daniel Nadar did not pay the lease amount and committed waste on the property. Therefore, the property was leased out to one Gabriel Nadar in the year 1965 by a registered document No.2299/65. The said Gabriel Nadar also executed a document in favour of the Temple on 25.05.1965 bearing document No.2301 of 1965. The said Gabriel Nadar was authorized to evict the Daniel Nadar. The Gabriel Nadar filed a suit against the Daniel Nadar. In the said suit, both the parties admitted that the property belongs to the temple. 3. While so, Gabriel Nadar sold the property to various persons. The purchasers obtained patta showing them as owners. The petitioner filed a petition before the first respondent to cancel the pattas issued to various third parties. The first respondent did not pass any orders on the petition filed by the petitioner. The petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.13219 of 2004. This Court by the order dated 14.06.2004 directed the first respondent to take action on the communication of the second respondent, The Deputy Commissioner, HR & CE Department, dated 24.02.2004 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of that order. 4. The first respondent issued notice for enquiry. According to the petitioner, on receipt of said notice from the first respondent, the representative of the temple appeared for enquiry and sought for adjournment. The first respondent refused the request for adjournment and passed the impugned order. According to the petitioner, the first respondent passed the impugned order mechanically. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. The third respondent, who is one of the purchaser of the property, has filed a counter affidavit denying the various allegations made by the petitioner. The first respondent refused the request for adjournment and passed the impugned order. According to the petitioner, the first respondent passed the impugned order mechanically. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. The third respondent, who is one of the purchaser of the property, has filed a counter affidavit denying the various allegations made by the petitioner. The third respondent stated that the request for adjournment by the petitioner was rightly rejected by the first respondent, as petitioner only approached this Court for disposing of the petition for transfer of patta expeditiously. 6. Heard Mr.S.Anwar Samum, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mrs.S.Bharathi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent for R1 and Mr.K.Sreekumaran Nair, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3,4,6,7 & 8. 7. In the impugned order, the first respondent has not stated that the representatives of the petitioner appeared for enquiry and sought for adjournment and the same was rejected. It is seen from the impugned order that Joint Commissioner, HR & CE produced the file. The first respondent passed an order after perusing the file and records produced by the Village Administrative Officer. 8. In the counter of third respondent it is stated that the request of petitioner for adjournment was rejected by the first respondent as petitioner only obtained an order for disposal of petition expeditiously. The petition for cancellation of patta was given by the petitioner herein. Therefore, the first respondent ought to have given opportunity to the petitioner to putforth his case. 9. In the result, without deciding the issue on merits, the impugned order of the first respondent is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent for fresh consideration on merits after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and others, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.