ORDER : The petitioner challenges the order of the first respondent, dated 08.11.2024. 2. I have heard Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram, for Mr.M.Jegadeesha Pandian, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mr.B.Saravanan, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 3 Mr.K.Navaneetharaja, learned counsel for the fourth respondent, Mr.M.Subbiah, learned counsel for the fifth respondent and Mr.V.Balasubramanian learned counsel for the sixth respondent. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would attack the order impugned in the present writ petition on the ground that the first respondent has acted beyond his jurisdiction in setting aside the order of the Tahsildar, dated 23.09.2022, which was never under challenge. The learned counsel would submit that the proceedings itself were initiated only at the instance of the petitioner and therefore, in an application filed by the petitioner, no relief could have been granted in favour of the private respondents. Insofar as direction of the first respondent, relegating the parties to approach the competent civil Court to establish their rights, the learned counsel would fairly submit that the said part of the order may not warrant inference, considering the complex factual disputes that have arisen before the revenue authorities. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the private respondents would however submit that the first respondent had suo-motu powers to set aside the orders of the Tahsildar and therefore, no infirmity can be attached to the impugned order of the first respondent. 5. In view of the fact that a correlation issue pertaining to survey numbers had also been raised by the learned counsel on either side, I directed the learned Additional Government Pleader to produce the correlation for old survey No.240/1 and 240/2. In obedience of the directions passed by me, the learned Additional Government Pleader has also produced the correlation certificates which evidences the fact that the issue raised by the petitioner pertains to survey No.240/2. The private respondents are claiming right only under survey No.240/1. However, the lay of the property is also under cloud. However, the said issue cannot be decided by the revenue authorities and it is a matter for evidence and the parties will have to lead satisfactory oral and documentary evidence to prove their respective contention and claims before the competent civil Court. 6. However, the lay of the property is also under cloud. However, the said issue cannot be decided by the revenue authorities and it is a matter for evidence and the parties will have to lead satisfactory oral and documentary evidence to prove their respective contention and claims before the competent civil Court. 6. Be that as it may, considering the fact that a suit has already been filed in O.S.No.297 of 2023 and the same is pending before the III Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli, at the instance of the fourth respondent herein, it would be sufficient to direct the III Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli, to dispose of the said suit expeditiously and in any event, not later than 31.10.2025. 7. It is also brought to my notice that the sixth respondent is not a party in the said suit and it shall be open to the sixth respondent to seek impleadment in O.S.No.297 of 2023. The impleading application shall be filed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and the said application as and when filed is agreed to by the counsel, not to be opposed and shall be entertained by the III Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli and the sixth respondent shall also be given an opportunity to file written statement in the said suit. The pleadings shall be completed not later than 15.07.2025. 8. With regard to the part of the impugned order setting aside the proceedings of the third respondent by order dated 23.09.2022, I find force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, the proceedings were initiated only at the instance of the petitioner and not by any of the private respondents. Therefore, in the proceedings initiated by the petitioner, order could not have been passed by the first respondent in favour of the private respondents. I am unable to countenance the submission of the learned counsel for the private respondents that the first respondent has suo-motu powers. No doubt, the first respondent is entitled to examine the records of the Tahsildar or the Appellate authority within its jurisdiction, on his own motion. I am unable to countenance the submission of the learned counsel for the private respondents that the first respondent has suo-motu powers. No doubt, the first respondent is entitled to examine the records of the Tahsildar or the Appellate authority within its jurisdiction, on his own motion. But, however, if the first respondent had taken a decision to review or recall the order dated 23.09.2022, even under Section 13 of the Patta Passbook Act , the petitioner ought to have been called upon specifically as to why the said order dated 23.09.2022 should not be cancelled or recalled. Such exercise has not been undertaken in the said case. During the course of deciding the petitioner's application, the first respondent has chosen to set aside the proceedings dated 23.09.2022, the same is not in compliance with the provisions of the Act and even otherwise, it is a clear violation of principles of natural justice. The party can be taken by such surprise and made to suffer adverse orders. Therefore, I am inclined to set aside this part of the impugned order alone. Patta No.6420 shall be restored as it stood on 01.10.2022, subject to the final decision in O.S.No.297 of 2023. 9. In fine, this Writ Petition is partly allowed, setting aside the portion of the impugned order of the first respondent cancelling the patta No.6420 and consequently restoring patta No.6420, which shall be subject to the final decision in O.S.No.297 of 2023 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli. As directed above, the sixth respondent shall be at liberty to seek impleadment in the said suit for effective adjudication between the parties and if any such application being made within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the said impleading application shall be allowed and the sixth respondent shall be permitted to file his defence on or before 15.07.2025 and the III Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli, shall frame issues conduct trial and dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and at any rate not later than 31.10.2025. Insofar as the other portion of the impugned order, directing the petitioner's to approach the competent civil Court, considering the fact that there is already a pending suit in O.S. No.297 of 2023 and directions having been issued herein above, I do not deem it necessary to interfere with said portion of the impugned order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.