ORDER : The only point which has been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the enquiry was fixed on 01.07.2014 and thereafter, it was adjourned to 22.07.2014, but the hearing was advanced on 08.07.2014 without notice to the petitioner, when the petitioners are admittedly living in Madras. Therefore, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners on the date of hearing fixed by the official respondents and impugned order came to be passed. Thus, it is violation of principles of natural justice, since the petitioners have not been heard of, before passing the impugned order by the first respondent. 2. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate for the respondents submitted that notice was sent to the petitioners. 3. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent though vehemently opposed the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners, in order to give quietus to this issue, he fairly conceded that the matter may be remitted back to the first respondent for passing fresh orders, without any further loss of time. 4. The fact remains that once the petitioners is not aware of the advancement of hearing, their rights to defence have been lost. On that short ground alone, the order impugned in this Writ Petition stands set aside by remitting the matter back to the first respondent for passing orders afresh. The petitioners as well as the private respondents can put forth their submissions along with documentary proof to support their contention. Thereafter, the first respondent shall pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further, as far as title is concerned, it is always open to the parties to approach the Civil Court and prove the same, if they desire to do so. With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.