(Prayer:Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the fourth respondent granting patta in favour of 6th, 7th, respondents and others in S.F.No.1521/2A1B Melavittan Village Part-I and quash the same as illegal and directing the 4th respondent to grant patta in favour of the petitioner for the S.F.No.1521/2A1B for 2 Acres 1 Cents in Melavittan Village Part-I Tuticorin Taluk, Tuticorin District.)
1. This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the fourth respondent granting patta in favour of 6th, 7th, respondents and others in S.F.No.1521/2A1B Melavittan Village Part-I and quash the same as illegal and direct the 4th respondent to grant patta in favour of the petitioner for the S.F.No.1521/2A1B for 2 Acres 1 Cents in Melavittan Village Part-I Tuticorin Taluk, Tuticorin District.
2. The writ petitioner claims that she is original owner of property in S.F.No.1521/2A1B for 2 Acres 1 Cents in Melavittan Village Part-I, Tuticorin Taluk, Tuticorin District. The said land was assigned in favour of one V.P.Kamaraj and P.V.Ayyakutti. Thereafter, the second respondent in proceedings C3.MR.IV.166/D/TUT dated 02.01.1998, has cancelled the order of assignment given in favour of the sixth respondent and another and registered land in favour of the original owner, namely, Ponnammal, the writ petitioner herein. Thereafter, the second respondent in his proceedings in C3.MR.IV.166/D/TUT dated 18.09.2001 has directed to cancel the sub-division in S.No.1521/2A and sub-divided as S.No.1521/2A1A and 1521/2A1B. Thereafter, the corrections were carried out in the revenue records. Thereafter, one M.P.T.Muthuraj filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P(MD)No.1202 of 2008 quashing the proceedings of the fourth respondent, dated 19.12.2007, made in Na.Ka.No.B2/R.D.R.6510/2007. This Court, by an order dated 12.12.2008, has given a direction to the fourth respondent, while setting aside the order, to consider the petition afresh, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to the rival claimants and pass orders, within a period of eight weeks.
3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that pursuant to the order of this Court, the fourth respondent without giving any notice to the writ petitioner, who is the original land owner, had transferred the entries in the revenue records in favour of 6th and 7th respondents.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would state that he could not produce the impugned order and would further submit that it would suffice if a direction is given to the 4th respondent to hear the petitioner's grievance and pass orders afresh.
5. In such circumstances, a direction is issued to the writ petitioner to make a representation to the fourth respondent with supporting documents in her favour and the fourth respondent, after receiving the representation of the petitioner, is directed to issue notice to all the parties concerned and pass orders, after conducting enquiry, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.