ORDER : 1. Both these writ petitions are concerning the same subject matter and also between the same parties and therefore, with the consent of all the counsel, the writ petitions are heard together. 2. The writ petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.26472 of 2022 challenges the order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.Ye2/See.Ma.No. 31/2020, dated 01.09.2022. The other writ petition in W.P.(MD)No. 25251 of 2024 has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to conduct a survey of the petitioner's land. 3. I have heard Mr.C.Venkateskumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.26472 of 2022 and the third respondent in W.P. (MD)No.25251 of 2024, Mrs.S.Jeyapriya, learned Government Advocate, for the official respondents, Mr.J.Mathesh, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.25251 of 2024. 4. The case of the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.26472 of 2022 is that the properties comprised in Survey Nos.421/1, 2, 4, 5 etc, of a total extent of 13 Acres 60 cents at Kalappakulam Village, Sankarankovil Taluk, then, Tirunelveli District and now, Tenkasi District, originally belonged to the petitioner's father, late Nagoor Meeran Rawother, who had purchased the same under a registered sale deed. 5. According to the petitioner, after the death of his father in the year 1991, the legal heirs entered into a registered partition deed on 05.05.1997, which was also duly registered in document No.523/1997 before the Sub Registrar, Sankarankovil. It is the further case of the petitioner that all the legal heirs had appointed one Ashraf Ali as a power agent to deal with the subject property. According to the petitioner, the power agent indulged in illegal activities and committed misappropriation and therefore, the petitioner cancelled the power of attorney issued to Ashraf Ali on 23.08.2004. It is the further case of the petitioner that the power agent had executed a sale deed in favour of the writ petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.25251 of 2024 and the petitioner also gave a complaint against the said purchaser before the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District on 24.03.2014 and subsequently criminal complaint on 04.02.2015 and there been no action taken. The petitioner had also filed a petition in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18239 of 2014 before this Court and F.I.R in Crime No.23 of 2015 is pending against the writ petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.25251 of 2024 and others. 6. The petitioner had also filed a petition in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18239 of 2014 before this Court and F.I.R in Crime No.23 of 2015 is pending against the writ petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.25251 of 2024 and others. 6. The further case of the petitioner is that the purchaser mutated patta in his name and the petitioner therefore approached the District Collector, Tirunelveli and made a complaint. The District Collector, in and by proceedings dated 29.07.2015, directed the Tahsildar, Sankarankovil, to conduct an enquiry. The Tahsildar, after conducting a peace committee meeting on 06.08.2015 by proceedings dated 14.08.2015 ordered registration of patta in the name of the petitioner's father. 7. Aggrieved by the said order of the third respondent viz., the writ petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.25251 of 2024, preferred an appeal to the second respondent, who allowed the said appeal accepting the case of the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.25251 of 2024. The petitioner preferred the revision petition to the District Revenue Officer on 20.09.2019 and pending the said revision, in view of the District bifurcation, a fresh revision has also been preferred before the first respondent on 03.10.2020. However, the first respondent by order dated 01.09.2022 held that cancellation of power of attorney by the petitioner is not valid. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the first respondent has not taken note of the findings of the District Collector, Tirunelveli, in the earlier proceedings dated 07.08.2019 and has passed a contradictory order, mechanically and without any application of mind. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the revenue authorities are not empowered to hold enquiry as to validity of any document, which can be declared only by civil Court and therefore, he would submit that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 9. Insofar as the Writ Petition filed by the purchaser in W.P. (MD)No.25251 of 2024, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the petitioner had no right and sale deed itself was invalid, having been executed after the cancellation of power, the petitioner therein cannot seek for survey of the lands and therefore, the petitioner sought for dismissal of W.P.(MD)No.25251 of 2024. 10. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.J.Mathesh appearing for the purchaser, viz., writ petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.25251 of 2024 would submit that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser for valid consideration and that the petitioner purchased the subject property under two registered sale deeds, in document Nos.1208/2003 and 1597/2004 and the petitioner has been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the properties, right from the dates of purchase. In fact, patta was also mutated in the name of the purchaser. The purchaser approached the Taluk Surveyor, to conduct survey and made an application on 12.09.2024 and again on 16.09.2024, after remitting the requisite fee. However, since no action had been taken, the purchaser had chosen to prefer the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.25251 of 2024. 11. As regards the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.26472/2022 the learned counsel for the purchaser Mr.J.Mathesh, would submit that the petitioner can only approach the competent civil Court and redress his grievance and there is no patent illegality in the impugned order passed by the first respondent, he would seek for dismissal of the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.26472 /2022 and seek for a Mandamus being issued in W.P. (MD)No.25251 of 2024. 12. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents, in both the writ petitions, would contend that the impugned order passed by the first respondent on 01.09.2022 is a well considered order, factoring all materials placed before the authority by the rival claimants and rightly the first respondent held that if there was any grievance, the parties could always approach the competent civil Court and seek relief. 13. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 14. The petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.26472 of 2022 is only one of the legal heirs of the original owner Mr. Nagoor Meeran Rawother, who was admittedly the owner of the subject lands. It is also the case of the petitioner that it was only the petitioner, who cancelled the power of attorney on 23.08.2004 issued to the agent Ashraf Ali and the other heirs of Nagoor Meeran Rawother have not chosen to cancel the power of attorney. The execution and registration of power of attorney, in favour of the said Ashraf Ali is not denied. The execution and registration of power of attorney, in favour of the said Ashraf Ali is not denied. Based on the said power of attorney, the said power agent Ashraf Ali has proceeded to execute two sale deeds, in favour of the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.25251 of 2021, one dated 04.09.2003 vide document No.1208/2003 conveying 7 Acres and another vide document No.1597/2004 dated 23.08.2004, conveying 6.6 Acres. In and by two sale deeds, out of total extent of 13.68 ½ Acres and 13.60 Acres have been sold by the legal heris of late Nagoor Meeran Rawother, represented by duly constituted power of attorney Asraf Ali for lawful consideration. 15. Insofar as the first sale deed dated 04.09.2003, there is no dispute that it was well before the cancellation of power of attorney by the petitioner. Therefore, the said sale deed cannot be called in question by the petitioner. It is also another aspect altogether that the other legal heirs have not chosen to cancel the power of attorney. It is only the petitioner, who executed a cancellation of the power of attorney on 23.08.2004. Interestingly, on the same day, i.e., 23.08.2024, the second sale deed was executed bythe power agent in favour of the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.25251 of 2024. 16. I have gone through the cancellation deed executed by the petitioner, which has been registered before the Sub Registrar, Karivalamvandanallur, on 23.08.2004 between 05.00 pm and 06.00 pm. However, the sale deed in favour of the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.25251 of 2024 has been executed and registered on the file of the jurisdictional Sub Registrar, viz., Sub Registrar, Sankarankovil. In fact, the time of registration of the said sale deed is not readily ascertainable from the documents filed by the parties. 17. Be that as it may, when the power of attorney executed by the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.26472 of 2022 was admittedly on the file of the Sub Registrar, Sankarankocil, it is not known how the petitioner got the cancellation of power of attorney registered at a different Sub Registrar Office. In any event, the petitioner has not been able to show that the power agent was not informed about the cancellation of the power agent before the sale deed came to be executed by the Agent, who represented not only the petitioner but also the other legal heirs of late Nagoor Meeran Rawother, on the very same day, i.e. 23.08.2021. In any event, the petitioner has not been able to show that the power agent was not informed about the cancellation of the power agent before the sale deed came to be executed by the Agent, who represented not only the petitioner but also the other legal heirs of late Nagoor Meeran Rawother, on the very same day, i.e. 23.08.2021. If at all the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.26472 of 2022 has any grievance against the power agent or he alleges that there has been any fraud or misappropriation, it is only open to the petitioner, to approach the competent civil Court and seek appropriate relief, when the power was admittedly cancelled only by the petitioner and not by the ten other legal heirs of late Nagoor Meeran Rawother. No doubt, as rightly contended by Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar, the first respondent ought not to have given a finding that the cancellation of power of attorney was invalid. However, apart from the said finding, I am unable to find any material error or patent illegality in the impugned order. Even the first respondent has ultimately left it open to the aggrieved party to approach the civil Court. It would suffice to make it clear that the findings rendered by the first respondent will not come in the way of the petitioner in W.P. (MD)No.26472 of 2022, seeking relief before the competent Court and otherwise, I do not find any justification in interfering with the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.Ye2/See.Ma.No. 31/2020, dated 01.09.2022, confirming the order of the Sub Collector, Tirunelveli. 18. Though the purchaser has filed W.M.P.(MD)No.23021 of 2024, seeking to implead himself as a necessary party in W.P.(MD)No.26472 of 2022, considering the fact that the impleading petitioner has already been heard extensively in this writ petition along with W.P.(MD)No.25251 of 2024, where he is the writ petitioner and in view of this common order, I do not find it necessary to implead the petitioner / proposed party as a party respondent in W.P.(MD)No.26472 of 2022. Consequently, W.M.P. (MDNo.23021 of 2024 is dismissed. W.P.(MD)No.26742 of 2022 is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court to establish his rights and also challenge the alleged acts of misappropriation and fraud committed by the power of attorney, in a manner known to law. 19. Consequently, W.M.P. (MDNo.23021 of 2024 is dismissed. W.P.(MD)No.26742 of 2022 is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court to establish his rights and also challenge the alleged acts of misappropriation and fraud committed by the power of attorney, in a manner known to law. 19. It is also made clear that the findings rendered by the first respondent that the revocation of power of attorney by the petitioner is invalid, will not bind the petitioner and it will be open to the petitioner to put forth all his contentions before the competent civil Court and independently establish his case. 20. Insofar as W.P.(MD)No.25251 of 2024, as long as the petitioner's sale deeds have not been set aside in a manner known to law and even according to the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.26472 of 2022, the sale deed was only in pursuance of the power of attorney executed by the petitioner and other legal heirs of late Nagoor Meeran Rawother, there can be no impediment for survey being conducted, based on the application made by the purchaser, who is the writ petitioner in W.P. (MD)No.25251 of 2024. 21. In fine: (i) W.M.P.(MD)No.23021 of 2024 is dismissed. (ii) W.P.(MD).No.26472 of 2022 is dismissed. (iii) W.P.(MD)No.25251 of 2024 is allowed with a direction to the respondents 1 and 2, to conduct a survey, based on the petitioner's application dated 12.09.2024 and 16.09.2024. (iv) There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P.(MD)Nos.20646 & 20648 of 2022 are closed.