ORDER : (P.B. BALAJI, J.) The writ petitioner in W.P.(MD)Nos.20642 and 20643 of 2022 challenges the order of the first respondent in Na.Ka.B4-18413-2022 and Na.Ka.B4-18912-2022 respectively, dated 05.07.2022 2. The writ petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.366 of 2023 challenges the impugned order of the second respondent in Na.Ka.P1-36545-2005 dated 25.09.2008 and to consequently direct the respondents 3 and 4 to cancel the patta of the sixth respondent, which is granted in survey No.64-5 and extent of 1.50.0 Hectare situated at Thiruthipatti Village, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District. 3. I have heard Mr.T.Veerakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(MD)Nos.20642 & 20643 of 2022 and M/s.S.Latha, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.366 of 2023, Mr.M.Lingadurai, learned Special Government Pleader for the first respondent W.P. (MD)Nos.20642 & 20643 of 2022 and Mr.S.Kameswaran, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 4 in W.P.(MD)No.366 of 2023 and Mr.G.Praburajadurai, learned counsel for the second respondent in W.P.(MD)No.20643 of 2022 and AV.Rajendran, learned counsel for the sixth respondent in W.P.(MD)No.366 of 2023. I have gone through the records and also considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 4. Insofar as the two writ petitions in W.P.(MD)No.20642 and 20643 of 2022 are concerned, the petitioner only challenges the enquiry notice issued by the District Revenue Officer, viz., first respondent on an application taken out by the second respondent in W.P.(MD)No.20642 of 2022 and the respondents 5 to 7 in W.P.(MD)No.20643 of 2022. 5. The case of the petitioner in these writ petitions is that the petitioners and the second respondent in W.P.(MD)No.20642 of 2022 and respondents 5 to 7 in W.P.(MD)No.20643 of 2022 are re-agitating an issue which has already attained finality and clearly amounts to case of re-litigation and therefore, the petitioner in these writ petitions is entitled to seek the enquiry notices to be quashed. 6.The learned counsel for the petitioner would take me through the various documents, including the earlier order passed by the first respondent, who has now taken up enquiry afresh and contend that the very same issues that have been raised by the second respondent in W.P. (MD)No.20642 of 2022 and respondents 5 to 7 in W.P.(MD)No.20643 of 2022, have already been elaborately dealt with and considered by the first respondent and therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it would be an exercise in futility to over and again go into the very same frivolous objections of the private respondents. However, Mr.Prabu Rajadurai, learned counsel for the second respondent would contend that the proceedings that had been relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner were all relating to a different family altogether and at no point of time, the petitioner or the petitioner's family were heard and therefore he would submit that the order that may have attained finality according to the writ petitioner, would not bind the second respondent in W.P.(MD)No.20642 of 2023. The learned counsel would further submit that the private respondents have to be given fair opportunity to put forth their claim and without hearing, then the proceedings have been passed behind her back and therefore, the application of the petitioner to conduct property enquiry and decide entitlement of patta should be undertaken, necessarily. He would therefore submit that the petitioner has hastily approached this Court challenging the enquiry notice itself. He would therefore pray for dismissal fo the writ petition. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No366 of 2023 would submit that the District Revenue Officer has passed an order on 23.09.2008 in Na.Ka.No.P1-36545-2005 and the same is challenged in the present writ petition. He would submit that the lands belonged to the petitioner's grandfather, viz., Udaiyappan Ambalam and even SLR patta was mutated. According the petitioner, the property is his ancestral property and during UDR survey, survey No.64-1 was wrongly subdivided as 64-5 and patta was granted to the fifth respondent. The fifth respondent has sold the property to the sixth respondent in and by sale deed in document No.3091/2005. On coming to know about the same, the petitioner has issued legal notice, on 09.12.2020, alleging that the sale was illegal. The fifth respondent has sold the property to the sixth respondent in and by sale deed in document No.3091/2005. On coming to know about the same, the petitioner has issued legal notice, on 09.12.2020, alleging that the sale was illegal. The petitioner has further sought for information under the Right To Information and thereafter, challenged the order of the second respondent. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents would submit that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. The first respondent has passed a detailed order way back in the year 2008 and the petitioner has slept over the matter and has not chosen to challenge the order. He would therefore submit that there is no merit in the writ petition. 9. With regard to this writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.366 of 2023, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the sixth respondent, the petitioner has sought to challenge an order passed in the year 2008, only in the year 2023. I do not find even a whisper about any justification or substantiation of delay in approaching this Court, challenging the order of the second respondent land dated 25.09.2008. Further, even according to the petitioner, he approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, seeking cancellation of patta and the same was also rejected in the year 2005 and thereafter, the revision to the second respondent has also been rejected. The petitioner further contends even in the affidavit that as early in 2020 as he sent a lawyer's notice, questioning the sale effected to the fifth respondent. Even thereafter, the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the order dated 25.09.2008 and he filed the present writ petition only on 15.12.2022. Therefore, on the ground of delay and laches, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. However, it shall be open to the petitioner to redress his grievances, if any by approaching the competent civil Court, subject to the laws of limitation. 10. With regard to W.P. (MD)No.20643 of 2022, it is seen that the claim of the second respondent is clearly independent of the claim in the earlier proceedings, which were only between the writ petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.366 of 2023 and the writ petitioner herein. 10. With regard to W.P. (MD)No.20643 of 2022, it is seen that the claim of the second respondent is clearly independent of the claim in the earlier proceedings, which were only between the writ petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.366 of 2023 and the writ petitioner herein. That apart, I had also called for necessary records to ascertain as to whether the brother of the second respondent in W.P.(MD)No.20643 of 2022 was a party to the earlier proceedings before the District Revenue Officer, which was a proceedings between the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.366 of 2023 and the petitioner in the present writ petitions in W.P.(MD)Nos. 20642 & 20643 of 2022. The second respondent does not claim under Sethuraman, the writ petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.366 of 2023. Admittedly, the impugned proceedings were without any notice or after hearing the objections of the second respondent in W.P.(MD)No.20642 of 2022 and respondents 5 to 7 in W.P.(MD)No.20643 of 2022. 11. Further, when the private respondents are able to show prima facie entitlement to right, with their grandfather's name being reflected in the revenue records, it would only be just and proper to afford an opportunity to the private respondents in these two writ petitions. No doubt, the District Revenue Officer has already passed a considered order, which has also become final, with dismissal of W.P.(MD)No.366 of 2023 in and by this common order. However, the equity and fair play require that the second respondent in W.P.(MD)No.20642 of 2022 and respondents 5 to 7 in W.P.(MD)No.20643 of 2022 are given a fair opportunity to put forth their separate claims, which is clearly independent of the claims already agitated before the first respondent by the writ petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.366 of 2023. 12. In fine these writ petitions are disposed in the manner following : (i) W.P.(MD)No.366 of 2023 is dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy, if any, available subject to the law of limitation in accordance with law, by approaching the competent civil Court. 12. In fine these writ petitions are disposed in the manner following : (i) W.P.(MD)No.366 of 2023 is dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy, if any, available subject to the law of limitation in accordance with law, by approaching the competent civil Court. (ii) W.P.(MD)No.20642 and 20643 of 2022 are dismissed, directing the first respondent to proceed with the enquiry and after hearing the petitioner as well as the second respondent in W.P.(MD)No. 20642 of 2022 and respondents 5 to 7 in W.P.(MD)No.20643 of 2022, and also considering the earlier order passed on 25.09.2008 shall test the claims of the private respondents independently, shall pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iii) There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.