1. The petitioner is a Company engaged in granite quarrying and connected activities. It is stated that the Company owns about 15 Acres of land, which were covered by 15 Pattayams issued to the original assignees of the land. The quarrying activities are currently confined to an extent of 3.65 Acres of land, which is covered by two Pattayams, which were issued to the original assignees, namely: Pattayams bearing No. LA(P)625/MUM and LA(P)632/MUM. In the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to protests by persons in the locality, a stop memo was issued to the petitioner at the instance of the District Collector, which prevented the petitioner from carrying on quarrying activities in the said land. The proceedings initiated by the stop memo, culminated in Ext.P1 order dated 01.10.2016, whereby the District Collector, after perusing Ext.P2 report of the Deputy Director (Survey) dated 14.07.2016, wherein the said Surveyor had indicated that all the lands falling in Sy.No. 364 of Mulayam Village had been assigned in two lots to various persons and that there was no Puramboku land left in the said survey number, found that there was material to suggest that no Pattayam had been issued bearing Nos. LA(P)625/MUM and LA(P)632/MUM. The relevant statutory authorities entrusted with the task of regulating the quarrying operations were therefore, directed to take consequential action based on a finding that the said Pattayams had never been issued by the revenue department and further, a direction was given to the Tahsildar to take steps to cancel the aforesaid Pattayams after an enquiry in the matter. The petitioner impugned Ext.P1 order before this Court through WP(C) No.32611 of 2016, which was disposed by this Court by Ext.P3 judgment dated 21.11.2016, clarifying that the directions in Ext.P1, which obliged the Tahsildar to consider the matter, could not be seen as accompanied by any direction by the District Collector to render any particular finding on the various allegations raised against the petitioner. This Court, therefore, directed the Tahsildar to independently go into the matter, after hearing the petitioner, and after considering the material available on record. Ext.P7 dated 22.12.2016 is the order passed by the Tahsildar, pursuant to the directions in Ext.P3 judgment. Therein, the Tahsildar considers the material available in the file, but does not expressly consider Ext.P2 report of the Deputy Director (Survey), that had been considered by the District Collector while passing Ext.P1 order, and thereafter comes to a conclusion that, with regard to 13 Pattayams that had been issued to various persons as detailed in Ext.P7 order, action was to be taken against the assignees of the lands in question for an alleged violation of the conditions of the said Pattayams. With regard to the two Pattayams referred above, namely: LA(P)625/MUM and LA(P)632/MUM, it was found that the records available with the revenue department indicated that no such Pattayams had in fact been issued to any assignees. The inference drawn by the Tahsildar is that, the Pattayams produced by the petitioner as Exts.P5 and P6, are fabricated documents, on which no reliance can be placed. In Ext.P7 order, however, after observing so, the Tahsildar found that the aforesaid Pattayams were liable to be cancelled, and proceeded to cancel the same. A recommendation was also made to the District Collector to initiate action against the officials who had played a role in the alleged fabrication of the two Pattayams. In the writ petition, the petitioner impugns Ext.P7 order, inter alia, on the contention that, the stand taken by the respondent Tahsildar is contradictory, in that, while on the one hand it is the case of the respondents that no Pattayams bearing Nos. LA(P)625/MUM and LA(P)632/MUM had in fact been issued by the revenue department, in the subsequent portion of the same order, the finding is that the Pattayams were liabl