JUDGMENT : Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the impugned order made in proceedings No.F2/5679/2018 dated 27.08.2019 passed by the first respondent and quash the said impugned order. 1. An extent of 4.30 acres of land in S.No.109/21, Pachudayanpatti Village, Sendhamangalam Taluk, Namakkal District was settled as royatwari dry and patta was issued in the name of Mr.Radha Krishnan Chettiar and four others under the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion in Royatwari) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The said survey number (S.No.109/21) was sub divided as S.No.109/21A to 109/21F and patta was issued to various persons based on transaction held subsequently. 2. In view of Section 14-A (2) of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion in Royatwari) Act, 1948 (amended Act 49/1974), these pattas were cancelled by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Salem vide his order dated 15.12.1975 and the land was classified as communal poromboke. This was challenged by the aggrieved pattadars. After enquiry, patta was issued to the following persons:- Sl.No Survey No. Classification Extent In favour of 1 1109/21A Royatwari punja 0.53.5 Ponnusamy S/o Nainamalai 2 1109/21B Royatwari punja 0.24.5 Lakshmi W/o Marimuthu 3 1109/2C Royatwari punja 0.25.0 Gopal and Vellaiyan @ Ponnusamy S/o Ramasamy 4 1109/21F Royatwari punja 0.50.0 Ponnusamy S/o Nainamalai Lakshmi W/o Marimuthu(2) Gopal S/o Ramasamy (3) and Vellaiyan @ Ponnusamy S/o Ramasamy (4) 3. The case of the petitioners is that, patta was issued in their favour by the second respondent vide his proceeding dated 06.04.1998. While so, after lapse of 14 years, the third respondent/Smt.Amsavalli Selvam, in the capacity of Panchayat President, Pachudayampatti Panchayat, Pachudayampatti Village, Sendhamangalam Taluk, Namakkam District made representation to the second respondent to cancell the patta. Her representation was dismissed by the District Revenue Officer (second respondent) on 14.09.2012. While so, pursuant to the direction of the High Court in W.P.No.4926 of 2013 filed by the third respondent, the first respondent (Commissioner of Land Administration) has passed an order on 27.08.2019, partly allowing the appeal of the third respondent and remanded the matter to the District Revenue Officer for fresh enquiry. The said order is impugned in this writ petition. 4. The said order is impugned in this writ petition. 4. A perusal of the order impugned discloses that the petitioners have claimed the property through the original assignment granted in favour of Mr.Radha Krishnan chettiar in the year 1960. The said assignment was cancelled by Assistant Settlement Officer, Salem in the year 1975. The transaction relied by the petitioners are subsequent to the cancellation and pending appeal. 5. The first respondent in his order after recording the facts has rightly observed that, the matter has to be enquired afresh. In the impugned order, the first respondent has concluded as under:- On examination of field inspection report of the then District Revenue Officer on 19.09.1997, it is ascertained that S.Nos.109/21A - patta kuttai, 21/B - Panchayat well, 21/C - coconut trees, 21/D - Bund, 21/E-Round well, 109/21F- waste dry with seemai karuvelam trees. The District Revenue Officer has ordered to retain 109/21B. The District Revenue Officer has not justified the changes recorded in the Revenue accounts as "communal poromboke" for S.Nos.21/A to 21F. The orders passed by the District Revenue Officer is partially allowed with S.Nos.109/21D and 109/21E whereas for the rest of the S.Nos. I remand the case to the District Revenue Officer for fresh enquiry with the Assistant Director (Survey) and re-examine in the light of G.O.576, Part-IV Section - 2, Act 49 of 1934 amendment of Section 3 Tamil Nadu Act XXVI of 1948, 14’A’ and send requisite proposals to this office in 30 days for causing final orders. 6. This Court finds no illegality in the order impugned. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners may be given liberty to make representation to the first respondent and they shall be afforded opportunity of hearing. If the petitioners are intend to make any representation, they are at liberty to make the same for consideration. 8. In the result, writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.