ORDER : 1. The prayer sought for herein is for a writ of mandamus calling for the records relating to the order made in O.Mu.8815/2-16/E6 dated 30.01.2017 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and consequently forbear the third respondent from any manner interfering with the petitioner's right in the property comprised in S.No.901/26 situated at Palacode Village, Dharmapuri District an extent of 348 Sq.ft., out of 1308 Sq.ft. 2.In respect of property at S.No.901/26 to the extent of 1308 Sq.ft., the petitioner wanted a joint patta along with the two others viz., Kannan S/o.Periyasamy Gounder and Radha, wife of Kannan in whose favour a part of the property in the said survey has already been sold. 3.In this regard, an application has been filed by the petitioner to the first respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer with a copy marked to the second respondent/Tahsildar. Pursuant to the said application submitted by the petitioner, the first respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer vide his communication dated 18.11.2016 given the following direction to the second respondent/Tahsildar. Other Language "ghyf;nfhL tl;lk; ngshums;sp rpj;jpug;gl;o fpuhk r/vz;/901/ 26y; r/mo tpw;gid bra;Js;s epyj;jpw;F gjpy; 1308 r/mo epyj;jpw;Fk; gl;lh bfhLf;fg;gl;Ls;sij uj;J bra;af; nfhhpa kDthdJ jf;f eltof;if vLf;Fk; bghUl;L ,j;Jld; ,izj;J mDg;gg;gLfpwJ/ nkw;go kD kPJ chpa tprhuiz nkw;bfhz;L mwpf;if mDg;gp itf;FkhW ghyf;nfhL tl;lhl;rpah; nfl;Lf;bfhs;sg;gLfpwhh;/ /cz;ik efy;/ xk;- f/,uhkK:h;j;jp. tUtha; nfhl;l mYtyh; jUkg[hp" 4.Thus, the first respondent has only given a direction to his subordinate i.e. the second respondent/Tahsildar to enquire into the matter and send a report to the first respondent enabling him to decide the issue, as claimed by the petitioner. 5.However, the second respondent/Tahsildar has passed the impugned order dated 30.01.2017 stating the following: Other Language "ghyf;nfhL tl;lk;. ghyf;nfhL jug;g[ rpj;jpiug;gl;o fpuhkj;ijr; nrh;e;j (nyl;) KDrhkp kfd; KUfd; vd;gth; ghyf;nfhL fpuhk ej;jk; gl;lh vz; 2583-y; g[yvz; 901-26y; 120 r/kP epyj;jpy; kDjhuh; je;ij gr;rpag;gft[z;lh; kfd; KDrhkp vd;gth; Mtz vz; 1623/1974-d;go 600 rJu mofs; kw;Wk; Mtz vz; 1146/98-d;go 360 rJu mo kl;Lk; bkhj;jk; 960 rJu mofs; kl;Lk; bghparhkp ft[z;lh; kfd; fz;zd; (1) fz;zd; kiktp uhjh (2) MfpnahUf;F fpiuak; bfhLf;fg;gl;lJ vdt[k; kPjKs;s Rkhh; 360 rJu mofs; epyk; kDjhuh; bgahpy; gl;lh khw;wk; bra;af; nfhhpaJ bjhlh;ghf Mtz';fs; kw;Wk; g[yj;jzpf;if nkw;bfhz;ljpy; nkw;go epykhdJ bghparhkp ft[z;lh; kfd; fz;zd; (1). fz;zd; kidtp uhjh (2) Mfpnahh; bgahpy; jhf;fyhfpa[s;sJ/ nkw;go g[yj;jpy; fz;zd;. uhjh vd;gth;fs; jhh;R tPL fl;o trpj;J tUfpwhh;fs;/ nkYk; nkw;go gl;lh khWjy; bjhlh;ghf kDjhuh; khtl;l tUtha; mYtyh; mth;fsplk; kD bra;J ghpfhuk; njof;bfhs;SkhW bjhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ/ /cz;ik efy; / (xk;) r/mjpakhd;. tl;lhl;rpah;. fz;zd; kidtp uhjh (2) Mfpnahh; bgahpy; jhf;fyhfpa[s;sJ/ nkw;go g[yj;jpy; fz;zd;. uhjh vd;gth;fs; jhh;R tPL fl;o trpj;J tUfpwhh;fs;/ nkYk; nkw;go gl;lh khWjy; bjhlh;ghf kDjhuh; khtl;l tUtha; mYtyh; mth;fsplk; kD bra;J ghpfhuk; njof;bfhs;SkhW bjhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ/ /cz;ik efy; / (xk;) r/mjpakhd;. tl;lhl;rpah;. ghyf;nfhL 6.Though it was directed by the second respondent to conduct an enquiry and send a report to the first respondent, he has not sent any such report, instead, he once again directed the petitioner to approach the first respondent to redress his grievance i.e. what has been reflected in the impugned order dated 30.01.2017. Therefore, felt aggrieved over the manner in which it has been decided by the second respondent, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with the aforesaid prayer. 7.Heard Mr.G.Ethirajulu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who having reiterated the aforesaid, would seek indulgence of this Court that if the impugned order dated 30.01.2017 of the second respondent is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the second respondent to conduct an enquiry by giving an opportunity to both parties and to send a report within a time frame to the first respondent, the petitioner would be satisfied. 8.Heard Ms.Akila Rajendran, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2 who would submit that, if at all the said order dated 30.01.2017 passed by the second respondent is not in full compliance of the directives issued by the first respondent dated 18.11.2016, certainly, the second respondent would enquire the matter in detail and accordingly will file a report to that effect to the first respondent, as directed by him vide his proceedings dated 18.11.2016 and for the said purpose only, the matter can be remanded back to the second respondent with a direction to decide the same and send a report within a time frame that may be stipulated by this Court. 9.No representation for the third respondent. 10.I have considered the said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials placed before this Court. 11.As has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it was only a direction given by the first respondent vide his proceedings dated 18.11.2016 to the second respondent to conduct an enquiry and send a report on the issue raised by the petitioner enabling the first respondent to decide the same. 11.As has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it was only a direction given by the first respondent vide his proceedings dated 18.11.2016 to the second respondent to conduct an enquiry and send a report on the issue raised by the petitioner enabling the first respondent to decide the same. 12.However, the second respondent, if we look at the impugned order dated 30.01.2017, has stated by directing the petitioner to approach the first respondent for redressal of his grievance. 13.The said relegation of the petitioner to the first respondent is not asked for by the first respondent through his proceedings dated 18.11.2016. In fact, the first respondent directed the second respondent to conduct an enquiry and send a report, which the second respondent has not complied with or failed to. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to interfere with the said order passed by the second respondent dated 30.01.2017 for the purpose of remitting the same to the second respondent to do the needful. 14.In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition with the following direction: That the impugned order dated 30.01.2017 passed by the second respondent is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the second respondent to conduct an enquiry in this regard and prepare a report to that effect and to send the same to the first respondent. In this regard, an opportunity of being heard to be given to both the petitioner as well as the third respondent and for the said purpose, separate notices shall be sent by the second respondent and on receipt of such notice, it is open to the petitioner as well as the third respondent to respond by making out their case and accordingly, the report shall be prepared and sent by the second respondent within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to mention that, once such report is received from the second respondent, as indicated above, the first respondent shall act upon and decide the plea raised by the petitioner in his application with regard to patta/joint patta of the land in question, thereafter within a period of eight weeks. 15.With these directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.