JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the respondent in proceedings No.A6/MRI 7/M dated 07.04.2005 and A6/MRI 7/M/thirko dated 17.07.2006 and published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No.42A and quash the same.) 1. The subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition pertains to the impugned proceedings of the respondent dated 07.04.2005 and the consequent publication made in the Government Gazette on 17.07.2006. 2. The case of the petitioners is that the properties were jointly owned and the father of the petitioner was the kartha of the joint family. A registered Deed of Partition came to be executed on 30.03.1960 and whatever share was allotted in favour of the father, was settled in favour of Linga Reddy and Desu Reddy under a registered Settlement Deed dated 05.01.1970. By virtue of this Settlement Deed, the petitioners are claiming to be the absolute owners of the subject property. 3. An enquiry was conducted and the authorities came to a conclusion that the lands held by the father attracted the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as "Act") and he had settled the property only to defeat the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, an order was passed under Section 9(2)(b) of the Act on 26.12.1991, declaring an extent of 12.56 Standard Acres of land as surplus. This order was also served on the mother. As against the said order, the mother filed an appeal before the Land Tribunal, Tanjavur. In the meantime, a draft statement under Section 10(1) of the Act was published in the Government Gazette on 13.05.1992 and the same was also served on the mother. She gave her objections under Section 10(5) of the Act on 20.10.1992. 4. The Land Tribunal through its order dated 29.12.1993, dismissed the appeal with an observation that the order has been passed only under Section 9(2)(b) of the Act and that the owner of the land is always at liberty to seek redressal in the subsequent proceedings by producing relevant materials to support their claim. 5. Pursuant to the above orders, notices were issued to the mother to appear before the concerned authority. 5. Pursuant to the above orders, notices were issued to the mother to appear before the concerned authority. In one such enquiry, the mother's brother appeared and stated that his sister is taking treatment in the hospital. Thereafter, a draft order was passed under Section 10(5) of the Act on 07.04.2005 and this was informed to the petitioners through a covering letter dated 30.01.2006. Thereafter, it was also published in the Government Gazette on 17.07.2006. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court. 6. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The relevant portions in the counter affidavit are extracted hereunder: 6) It is further submitted that as per the directions of the Land Tribunal, Thanjavur fresh enquiry has conducted u/s 10 (5) of the Act by the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Villupuram. The averments made in paras 6 & 7 of the Affidavit to the effect that repeated representations were made by the petitioners are contrary to the fact. After the receipt of the Tribunal order, a notice dt. 28.2.94 was issued to the parties to appear for enquiry on 15.3.94, through the Special Revenue Inspector (Land Reforms) for service. The Special Revenue Inspector reported that the notice could not be served on them as the parties were reported to have left the village for treatment to outer station. Another notice was issued on 28.03.1994 to appear on 04.04.1994 for which Tmt.Desiammal's brother one A. Narayanaswami, S/o. AbbaiReddiar filed a petition stating that Desiammal was taking treatment in the hospital for the past one month and that another date may be fixed. The draft order u/s. 10 (5) of the Act was sent to Desiammal by RPAD No.1335/11.05.2005, but it was returned by the postal authorities with an endorsement to the effect that the "addressee is not found". Then, the draft order was sent to the Special R.I. (Land Reforms), Villupuram for service on the parties in Ref.A6.HH/71M/TKR, dt. 08.08.2005. The Special R.I. had served the order on the present petitioner DesuReddiar and his brother M. Baskaran on 17.01.2006 and also reported that the order could not be served on Desiammal as she had died. The Special R.I. further reported that since the other parties viz. 08.08.2005. The Special R.I. had served the order on the present petitioner DesuReddiar and his brother M. Baskaran on 17.01.2006 and also reported that the order could not be served on Desiammal as she had died. The Special R.I. further reported that since the other parties viz. LingaReddiar and Kaveriammal were reported to be residing at Tirukoilur, he went to Tirukoilur for service, but could not be served on them because they have been said to have gone to Chennai. Then, the draft order was again sent to Thiru. Linga Reddiar, Tmt. Santhi and Tmt. Kaveri Ammal by Regd. Post No.2406, 2407 and 2408/02.02.2006. It is further submitted that on receipt of the order, Thiru. M. LingaReddiar filed a petition dt.13.02.2006 to the effect that he may be given time for one month since he has to consult his brother and sisters. The present Writ Petitioner also filed a petition dt. 04.04.2006. Hence it is submitted that the question of dispensing with the issue of notice to the Legal hiers of the deceased land owner does not arise. 7) As regards the common averments made in paras 8 to 12, it is respectfully submitted that one Muthukrishna Reddiar, S/o. DesuReddiar, T. Kunnathur village, Tirukoilur Taluk, Villupuram District was a person attracted by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of ceiling on Land) Act 58/61 as amended by the Act 17/1970. After all the completion of field enquiry etc., the holdings of the land owner were determined as 63.63 ½ ordinary acres equivalent to 27.560 standard acres u/s. 1 and 4.77 ordinary acres equivalent to 3.49 standard acres of land u/s. VI as on 15.2.1970, the date of commencement of the Act. Then, an order u/s. 9 (2) (b) of the Act was passed on 26.12.1991 declaring on extent of 12.56 standard acres of land as surplus. A copy of the said order was served on the land owner's wife Tmt. Desiammal on 20.01.1992 since the land owner was deceased. Against the said order, Tmt. Desiammal filed an appeal before the Land Tribunal, Thanjavur. In the meantime, draft statement u/s. 10 (1) of the Act was published in the Govt. Gazatte on 13.05.1992 and it was served on the land owner's wife on 21.09.1992 and she had also filed an objection petition on 20.10.1992. Against the said order, Tmt. Desiammal filed an appeal before the Land Tribunal, Thanjavur. In the meantime, draft statement u/s. 10 (1) of the Act was published in the Govt. Gazatte on 13.05.1992 and it was served on the land owner's wife on 21.09.1992 and she had also filed an objection petition on 20.10.1992. It is further submitted that the Land Tribunal, Thanjavur in it's order in LTC MA No.44/92, dt. 29.12.1993 dismissed the appeal, with an observation that the order is only u/s. 9 (2) (b) of the Act and that the land owner is at liberty to seek reddressal in the subsequent proceedings also by producing evidence for the  claims. As per the directions of the Land Tribunal, Thanjavur fresh enquiry was conducted u/s.10 (5) of the Act. Necessary notices were issued to appear for enquiry. But she did not turn up for enquiry. Hence, enquiry based on her objection petition was conducted by Assistant Commissioner, Land Reforms, villupuram during 2006. In her objection petition, she raised two main objections viz. 1. that the settlement deeds dt. 05.01.1970 are bonafide transactions and 2. That the Assistant Commissioner, Land Reforms, Villupuram has to grant exemption and exclusion for certain lands. After considering the objections, raised by the petitioner and after due enquiry it was arrived at the conclusion that the settlement of lands in favour of his 2 major sons cannot be treated as a bonafide one. As regards the claim of exemption and exclusion of certain lands, the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Villupuram inspected the lands and found 2.138 Standard Acres as unfit for classification. Hence 2.138 Standard Acres was excluded u/s. 3 (22) of the Act and after allowing ceiling of 15.000 Standard Acres, a surplus of 10.422 Standard Acres was arrived and the land owner was directed to offer the list of surplus lands to the tune of 10.422 Standard Acres in the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Villupuram in A.S.MR1/7/M, dt. 07.04.2005 7. Heard Mr.Sunny Sheen, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr.R.Kumaravel, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent. 8. 07.04.2005 7. Heard Mr.Sunny Sheen, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr.R.Kumaravel, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent. 8. It is clear from the stand taken by the respondent that notices were issued to the mother of the petitioners during three occasions in the year 1994 and during one of the hearings, the mother's brother appeared and sought for some time on the ground that the mother was taking treatment in a hospital. Obviously, this enquiry is said to have taken place in the year 1994. However, the draft order under Section 10(5) was passed only on 07.04.2005. On carefully going through the order, it is seen that the objections raised by the land owner was rejected and the respondent came to a conclusion that the Settlement Deed was not a bonafide transaction and hence, whatever lands were settled must be taken to be the lands of the father and accordingly, 10.422 Standard Acres was declared to be surplus and the land owner was directed to offer the list of surplus lands. 9. An enquiry that is conducted under Section 9 of the Act is not an empty formality and it is an enquiry where an authority determines the land holding of the owner and declares if there is any surplus lands. In the facts of the present case, the petitioners have taken a stand that there was a genuine settlement of the property by the father in favour of his sons even before the coming into force of the Act on 15.02.1970. The respondent has gone on the footing that the settlement was registered on 09.03.1970 and the stamp papers were purchased in the names of third parties who are not connected with the transaction and therefore, they have come to a conclusion that the land owner had effected the settlement only with a view to defeat the provisions of the Act. Thereby, 10.422 Standard Acres was declared as surplus. 10. The enquiry is said to have taken place in the year 1994. Whereas, the order came to be passed under Section 10(5) only in the year 2005 i.e., after nearly 11 years. It is a fundamental principle that a person who hears must only decide and pass orders. This Rule has also been applied to quasi judicial and administrative orders. This is founded on the principles of natural justice. Whereas, the order came to be passed under Section 10(5) only in the year 2005 i.e., after nearly 11 years. It is a fundamental principle that a person who hears must only decide and pass orders. This Rule has also been applied to quasi judicial and administrative orders. This is founded on the principles of natural justice. Useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Sri S.Vennkitasubramanya Iyer and others vs. Sri T.L.Ananthasivan reported in 1996 (3) L.L.N.50. In the said judgment, the Kerala High Court taking into account all the earlier judgments had categorically held that if one person hears and another decides, then the hearing becomes an empty formality. 11. The above judgment will squarely apply to the facts of the present case. In this case, the objections were heard by a different officer in the year 1994 and the orders were passed under Section 10(5) after 11 years by yet another officer. Hence, the order passed on 07.04.2005, must be held to be in violation of principles of natural justice. The mother of the petitioners passed away on 23.11.2005 and the petitioners were served with the order dated 07.04.2005 only through a communication dated 30.01.2006. Subsequently, the same was also published in the official Gazette. 12. In the considered view of this Court, the order passed on 07.04.2005, is liable to be interfered by this Court, since the so-called hearing became an empty formality and a completely different officer has passed the order after nearly 11 years. In view of the same, the order dated 07.04.2005, passed under Section 10(5) of the Act is hereby set aside. The subsequent publication made in the Gazette is also set aside insofar as the properties belonging to the petitioners. 13. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the file of the respondent. The respondent is directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioners and call for their objections and thereafter, deal with the same strictly in accordance with law and pass final orders. This process shall be completed, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.