ORDER 1. The Writ Petition has been filed praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Aal/1930/2003 dated 3.8.2009 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same. By the said order, the Revenue Divisional Officer has temporarily stayed the patta proceedings of the third respondent. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he had purchased the land measuring to an extent of 42.63 acres in S. Nos. 98/3, 99/3 and 100/3 at Theivachayalpuram Village in Srivaikundam Taluk from one Medai Dalvoi Thirumalaiyappa Mudaliyar by way of registered sale deed. The petitioner sent a representation dated 5.11.2008 to the third respondent to issue a joint patta in patta No. 31 in respect of the lands purchased by the petitioner in the said survey numbers and the same was numbered as RTR No. 4766 of 2008 on the file of the Taluk Office. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted by the Village Administrative Officer and wherein it was stated that there is no objection for granting of patta to the petitioner and recommended for the same as per the registered sale deed 31.10.2008. The fourth respondent who is the authority to issue patta further conducted a detailed enquiry on 17.11.2008 and ordered for grant of patta in and by order dated 24.1.2009 and further the fourth respondent has passed a detailed order dated 8.5.2009 in DTR No. 5821 of 2008 for issuance of joint patta. Thereafter, computerised joint patta dated 10.7.2009 was issued in favour of the petitioner and the kist receipt also is standing in the name of the petitioner from 9.3.2009 onwards. 3. While the matter stood thus, the second respondent through his impugned order dated 3.8.2009 by referring a Writ Appeal in W.A. No. 30 of 2007 has temporarily cancelled the joint patta issued by the office of the third respondent dated 24.1.2009. According to the petitioner, the said Writ Appeal is no way connected with the survey numbers for which the petitioner possessed the joint patta. Further, the impugned order of temporary cancellation of joint patta came to be issued on the basis of a petition received by the official respondents. Before passing the impugned order, neither notice nor explanation is obtained from the petitioner. Hence, the Writ Petition has been filed. 4. Further, the impugned order of temporary cancellation of joint patta came to be issued on the basis of a petition received by the official respondents. Before passing the impugned order, neither notice nor explanation is obtained from the petitioner. Hence, the Writ Petition has been filed. 4. Subsequent to the filing of the Writ Petition, the respondents 5 to 13 got impleaded themselves in the Writ Petition by filing impleading petitions. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein had purchased 42.63 acres in S. Nos. 98/3, 99/3 and 100/3 at Theivachayalpuram Village, in Srivaikundam Taluk, on 31.10.2008, from one Medai Dalvvoi Thirumalaiappa Mudaliyar. Subsequent to his purchase, on the basis of the representation dated 5.11.2008, joint patta No. 31 was issued to the petitioner. However, based on the petition submitted by a political party, the joint patta which stood in the name of the petitioner was temporarily suspended. He further submitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer has no power to temporarily suspend the patta. Only in the event of any appeal is being filed as against the issuance of patta by the Tahsildar, the second respondent is entitled to pass order in the said appeal. However, on suo motu, the Revenue Divisional Officer, cannot suspend the patta granted in favour of the petitioner, that too, without giving an opportunity of hearing based on a petition given by a third party. 5.1. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that according to the sixth respondent the entire land belongs to one Medai Dalvoi Mudaliyar, which was acquired under the Tamil Nadu Land Ceiling Act on 5.7.1970 and as such the family members of Medai Dalvoi Mudaliar has no right to sell the property. Though huge lands belonging to Medai Dalvoi Mudaliar Family have been acquired by the Government of Tamil Nadu, still the family members of Medai Dalvoi Mudaliar is holding some of the lands an individual capacity. The said Thirumalaiyappa Mudaliar had sold out the lands to the petitioner, which he was holding in his individual capacity. Though huge lands belonging to Medai Dalvoi Mudaliar Family have been acquired by the Government of Tamil Nadu, still the family members of Medai Dalvoi Mudaliar is holding some of the lands an individual capacity. The said Thirumalaiyappa Mudaliar had sold out the lands to the petitioner, which he was holding in his individual capacity. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner by inviting the attention of this Court, the counter filed by the Joint Secretary to Government in SLP No. 2837 of 1994 and submitted that the statement made in the counter would show that there are about 16 co-sharers in respect of the property, the petitioner has purchased the properties from one of the co-sharers, namely, M.D. Thirumalaiappa Mudaliar by registered sale deeds. In a given situation, the Revenue Divisional Officer has no authority to cancel the patta issued in favour of the petitioner, that too, without giving any notice. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the private respondents submitted that the entire land was brought under the Tamil Nadu Land Ceiling Act long back. The petitioner had purchased the property from one of the co-sharers, namely, Thirumaliappan Mudaliar. However, as on date, the said Thirumaliappan Mudaliar is not the owner of the property in question. Therefore, the petitioner has no right over the property in question. Actually, the patta stands in the name of one R.S. Sornam and without any means to purchase, this large extent of land has been alienated. In this regard, there is no full-fledged enquiry by the Village Administrative Officer. Thus, he sought for the dismissal of the Writ Petition. 7. Mr. P.H. Pandiyan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that there are totally 288 sharers for Seevalapery Chatram Akthars. Out of 288 shares allotted, 11 shares formed part of S. No. 98 part, 99, 100 which was allotted to one kanthimathi Anni, legal heir of Medai Thalavai Mudaliar Family. The property comprised in S. Nos. 98 part, 99 and 100 had been purchased by the M/s. Silver Bell Developers Pvt. Ltd. vide sale deeds 3093 of 2009 and 3094 of 2009 dated 25.5.2009 from the legal heirs of Kanthimathi Anni by patta No. 31. The said Kanthimathi Anni has four legal heirs and out of the four shares, Greyia Realtors Private Limited, Chennai, has purchased 2/4th share and 2/4th share for M/s. Silverbell Developers Pvt. Ltd. Chennai. The said Kanthimathi Anni has four legal heirs and out of the four shares, Greyia Realtors Private Limited, Chennai, has purchased 2/4th share and 2/4th share for M/s. Silverbell Developers Pvt. Ltd. Chennai. Further, M/s. Silverbell Developers Pvt. Ltd. had also purchased 1/4th share from one K. Angayakani, who is the daughter of one Kandhimathi Anni. 8. Similarly, Nervosa Builders Private Limited, Chennai, have purchased the property from the other legal heirs of Medai Dalvoi family, so far as title in S. Nos. 98, 99 and 100 are concerned, the petitioner has no right, but without impleading the necessary parties who had purchased the land in S. No. 98 to 100, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no opportunity was given to this petitioner by the Revenue Divisional Officer before passing the impugned order. 9. The learned Senior Counsel has also invited the attention to the proceedings of the District Collector dated 25.6.2013 and submitted that the petitioner had obtained patta in respect of the property which has been created by manipulation. 10. According to the impleading respondents as K. Thirumalaiappa Mudaliar has no right to sell the property, there is no error in the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. However, this argument of impleading respondents, was denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. But, irrespective of the submissions made on either side, I am of the opinion that since the order has been passed without giving an opportunity to the parties concerned, it would be appropriate to set aside the order impugned in this Writ Petition and direct the second respondent to pass an order afresh by giving an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. 11. In view of the above, the order impugned in this Writ Petition stands set aside and the Revenue Divisional Officer is directed to issue a fresh notice to all the parties concerned and call for their explanations. While doing so, the second respondent is directed to consider the relevant documents to be produced by the parties and after conducting a detailed enquiry, pass a fresh order, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs, consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. While doing so, the second respondent is directed to consider the relevant documents to be produced by the parties and after conducting a detailed enquiry, pass a fresh order, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs, consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the order is set aside, there is a possibility to alienate the property. In view of the said submissions, the parties are directed to maintain status quo as on date till the disposal of the issue on hand.