ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed to quash the order passed by the third respondent dated 14.05.2024. 2. Initially, the petitioner sought for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the third respondent to cancel the patta in the name of the respondents 5 to 7 and to consequently, restore patta in the petitioner's name. However, pending the writ petition, W.M.P.(MD)No. 19089 of 2024 has been filed seeking to amend the relief and the said application was allowed by this Court by order dated 22.01.2025. Thereby, now, the writ petitioner challenges the impugned order passed by the third respondent dated 14.05.2024. 3. I have heard Mr.J.Bharathan for Mr.M.Maharajan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.B.Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 4 and Mr.M.Rajendran, learned counsel for the respondents 5 to 7. 4. The case of the petitioner is that without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without hearing the petitioner, patta transfer order has been passed in and by an order dated 14.05.2024. It is further contended that the application for patta transfer itself was made on 13.05.2024, on the very next day (i.e., on 14.05.2024), hastily the impugned order has been passed. The petitioner's case is that in respect of the subject lands, patta No.1404 was issued in the name of the petitioner, even as early as in the year 2001. According to the petitioner, the properties originally belonged to his father, Ponnuchamy and after the demise of his father on 10.02.1998, the petitioner has got all his sisters' married and considering the petitioner's sacrifice to the family, his sisters had relinquished their shares in the said property. Only, thereafter, the patta came to be issued in the name of the petitioner, that too after enquiry conducted by the revenue authorities. However, after 23 years, the patta has been cancelled behind the back of the petitioner and the names of the respondents 5 to 7 have been included by the fourth respondent. The petitioner challenges the said order of the fourth respondent as being contrary to the provisions of the Patta Passbook Act and also in violation of principles of natural justice. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.J.Bharathan, would submit that the fourth respondent was not even competent to decide the application as there were only three circumstances, under which entries in the patta passbook can be modified. 6. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.J.Bharathan, would submit that the fourth respondent was not even competent to decide the application as there were only three circumstances, under which entries in the patta passbook can be modified. 6. The learned counsel referring to Section 10 of the Patta Passbook Act , would contend that the present case did not fall, in any of the three categories and therefore, the only remedy that would have been open to the respondents 5 to 7 was to challenge the order of the Tahsildar, granting patta to the petitioner in the year 2001 and even such appellate remedy was only subject to limitation prescribed for preferring an appeal under Section 12, which is 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents 5 to 7, Mr.M.Rajendran, would deny the claims of the petitioner that he has taken care of the family and that his sisters had relinquished their shares. The learned counsel would also deny the claim of the petitioner that his sisters had consented for patta being mutated in the name of the petitioner. He would further submit that the petitioner obtained patta fraudulently and also proceeded to alienate many items of property, despite the respondents 5 to 7 having a right in the said property. 8. According to the respondents 5 to 7, even on 09.09.2023, an application was made for including their names in the patta and the allegation of the petitioner that the application was made on 13.05.2024 and hastily on the very next day (i.e., on 14.05.2024) an order came to be passed is stoutly denied. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner being a Police Constable has taken advantage of his position and influenced authorities to obtain patta in his name. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the impugned order dated 14.05.2024 was only pursuant to an enquiry conducted on 18.10.2023, including the petitioner being heard in the said enquiry and therefore, the petitioner can only approach the Revenue Divisional Officer by way of an appeal and not seek for quashing the order passed by the fourth respondent in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. 9. The learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that under RSO 31(8), the Revenue Divisional Officer alone is entitled to decide the issue on appeal against the fourth respondent's order. He would further submit that the application for inclusion of the sisters' names was made even as early as on 09.09.2023 and the Village Administrative Officer also conducted an enquiry on 13.05.2024, giving an opportunity to the petitioner as well and only thereafter the impugned order came to be passed. With regard to the application being made on 13.05.2024, the Additional Government Pleader, Mr.B.Saravanan, would submit that it is only an on-line application that was made on 13.05.2024 and reiterated the contention that the original application by the respondents 5 and 6 was made even on 09.09.2023. The learned Additional Government Pleader would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 10. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side. 11. Admittedly, the patta was issued in the name of the writ petitioner as early as in the year 2001. It is the case of the petitioner that his sisters gave no objection for mutation of patta in the name of the petitioner. But, for the said consent affidavits, the private respondents who are the sisters of the petitioner are entitled to have their names also jointly mutated in the patta along with the writ petitioner, pursuant to the demise of their father, who admittedly died intestate. The petitioner does not claim that his father had executed a settlement deed in his favour. Therefore, the only basis on which the patta could have been mutated in the name of the petitioner was by a relinquishment by sisters or no objections / consent affidavit issued by them. 12. This Court by order dated 14.08.2023 directed the respondents 1 to 4 to file a counter affidavit as to how the patta was originally granted in the individual name of the writ petitioner and on what date the request of cancellation was made by the respondents 5 to 7. Further time was granted to the respondents 1 to 4 on 04.09.2024. When the matter was heard by me, on 12.02.2025, I have directed the official respondents to produce the records, to ascertain whether any consent affidavits have be issued by the respondents 5 to 7 and whether enquiry was conducted on 13.05.2024. 13. Further time was granted to the respondents 1 to 4 on 04.09.2024. When the matter was heard by me, on 12.02.2025, I have directed the official respondents to produce the records, to ascertain whether any consent affidavits have be issued by the respondents 5 to 7 and whether enquiry was conducted on 13.05.2024. 13. The counter affidavit of the fourth respondent has been relied on by the learned Additional Government pleader, Mr.B.Saravanan, and he would reinforce the contention of the respondents 5 to 7 that the application for grant patta was made even as early as on 09.09.2023 and not on 13.05.2024 as projected by the petitioner, on which date only an online application was made. With regard to the enquiry on 13.05.2024, it is contended that since the patta transfer was sought in respect of “full fields”, the competent authority was the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, namely, the fourth respondent and pursuant to the application, the Village Administrative Officer has conducted a detailed enquiry in the village on 13.05.2024 and the petitioner was also enquired and he did not object to the patta transfer sought by his sisters. It is also informed by the learned Additional Government Pleader that the respondents 5 to 7 have not given any consent as claimed by the petitioner. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5 to 7, apart from the above submissions, would also invite my attention to the additional typed set of papers, including the legal heir certificate of their father and also the application dated 09.09.2023, seeking inclusion of their names in patta No.1404. The proof of sending registered notice is also enclosed, which evidences the fact that the said representation was sent on 09.09.2023. The fact that the said representation was received by the Tahsildar, Melur, is evidenced by communication dated 14.09.2023. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Melur, dated 14.09.2023, has called upon the Tahsildar, Melur, to take appropriate steps in furtherance of the application made by the sisters. Thereafter, by a memorandum in Oo.Mu.No.6072/2023/A5 dated 05.10.2023, the Tahsildar has directed the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, to conduct an enquiry and forward a report. 15. In view of the above, the contention of the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed hastily within a day cannot be countenanced. Thereafter, by a memorandum in Oo.Mu.No.6072/2023/A5 dated 05.10.2023, the Tahsildar has directed the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, to conduct an enquiry and forward a report. 15. In view of the above, the contention of the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed hastily within a day cannot be countenanced. As rightly contended by the private respondents, it is only the online application that has been made on 13.05.2024 and it is not as if the private respondents have approached the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar for the first time on 13.05.2024. The matter was already pending on the file of the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar right from September 2023 onwards as evidenced by the documents which have already been discussed herein above. Further, it is also the categorical case of the official respondents that the Village Administrative Officer conducted an enquiry on 13.05.2024 and the petitioner was also enquired. The averments made in the affidavit in support of the writ petition also go to confirm the fact that the petitioner came to know about the application made on 13.05.2024, in the evening, at about 06.03 pm, which probablizes the fact that the Village Administrative Officer has conducted an enquiry on 13.05.2024. 16. Be that as it may, the only ground on which the petitioner can sustain his patta, is by substantiating that his sisters, viz., respondents 5 to 7, had given consent affidavits for issuance of patta in his name. However, the respondents 5 to 7 have denied having given any such consent affidavits. The official respondents have not also accepted the version of the petitioner that only based on consent affidavits, patta was mutated in the individual name of the petitioner. While so, it is the bounden duty of the petitioner to establish that the patta transferred in his name, subsequent to the death of his father was duly effected, after his sisters gave “No objections / consent affidavits”. The petitioner is also unable to substantiate the said claim of the sisters having consented for issuance of patta in the name of the petitioner. 17. The petitioner is also unable to substantiate the said claim of the sisters having consented for issuance of patta in the name of the petitioner. 17. Coming to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.J.Bharathan, that the power to modify entries in the Patta Passbook Act , under Section 10 by including the names of the respondents 5 to 7 could not have been undertaken by the Tahsildar or the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, reliance is placed on Section 10 of the Patta Passbook Act . It deals with the power of the Tahsildar to modify entries in patta passbook. No doubt, the power of modification of entries in the patta passbook are permissible under the following circumstances alone, viz: (i) death of person. (ii) transfer of interest in the land. (iii) Subsequent change in circumstances. 18. The case of the daughters claiming their names to be included in the patta will fall under the first circumstances, viz., death of their father, who was admittedly the owner of the property. It can also be brought within the third category, viz., subsequent change in circumstances, viz., the patta wrongly issued to the individual name of the petitioner, without even hearing the sisters and subsequently their request for inclusion of their names as early as in September 2023. In the first place, the very same procedure ought to have been adopted by the Tahsildar when patta was mutated in the name of the petitioner alone. The petitioner is bound to furnish information as required under Section 11 of the Patta Passbook Act and unless and until the petitioner had produced the consent affidavits of his sisters, namely, the respondents 5 to 7, by no stretch of imagination, the petitioner would have been entitled to patta to be issued in his individual name. Admittedly, it is not even the case of the petitioner that his father had settled the property on him or executed a Will in his favour. By reason of intestate succession, the respondents 5 to 7 are also equally entitled to a share in the property. 19. Admittedly, it is not even the case of the petitioner that his father had settled the property on him or executed a Will in his favour. By reason of intestate succession, the respondents 5 to 7 are also equally entitled to a share in the property. 19. On going through the impugned order, I do not find that the fourth respondent has followed the mandate of Section 10(3) (a) that prescribes the procedure to be adopted and also a reasonable opportunity to be given to the parties concerned, before taking a decision with regard to modification of any entry in the patta passbook. The impugned order does not disclose of any such procedure being adopted or opportunity being given to the petitioner. Therefore, though when the patta was issued in the name of the petitioner in 2001 and again, when names of the respondents 5 to 7 is directed to be included in the joint patta in and by impugned order, the procedure contemplated under Section 10 of the Patta Passbook Act has not been followed. 20. For the above reasons, I am inclined to interfere with the orders of the third respondent. Hence, the impugned order passed by the third respondent is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the fourth respondent, to give opportunity to the petitioner as well as the respondents 5 to 7, to put forth all their claims/objections with regard to the mutation of patta, pursuant to the demise of their father Ponnuchamy. The fourth respondent shall conduct due enquiry and shall consider the documents that have already been relied on by the parties and take a final decision as to whether, the respondents 5 to 7 are entitled to include their names in the patta No.1404 or whether the respondents 5 to 7 have given consent affidavits even during 2001, when patta was issued in the individual name of the writ petitioner. Such exercise shall be carried out within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 21. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.