The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in Rc.K1/12524/2005 dated 01.06.2005 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against law and restore the order of the second and third respondents dated 20.07.2000 in Mu.Mu.(A2)

1138/2000

.2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:-

.The lands comprised in Survey No.657/4A3 to an extent of 10 acres situate in 129, Pallikaranai Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District was originally classified as a Government Poromboke – Kazhuveli which was in possession and enjoyment of one Ramamoorthy, Son of Thangavel. The petitioner has purchased the said property on 211. 1970 from the said Ramamoorthy and ever since the said date, he is in possession and enjoyment of the same and the third respondent also issued B memo in his name; that considering the uninterrupted possession of the petitioner for more than 30 years, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Tiruvannamalai, who is the proper authority as per circular issued by the Special Commissioner, Land Administration in E3 12970/90 dated 29.04.1991 and also his letter in K1.50081/99 dated 08.05.2000, granted patta to the petitioner on 20.07.2000, after conducting enquiry classified the Government Poromboke – Kazhuveli into Government Poromboke. After issue of reclassification order in favour of the petitioner on 27.06.2002, the Commissioner, Land Administration had issued a direction to the Tahsildar to make necessary changes in the Village and Taluk records. Thereafter, in confirmity to the orders of the Commissioner, Land Administration, the Tahsildar issued Patta to the petitioner on 11.09.2002. While things are such, the first respondent herein issued show cause notice dated 13.05.2005 invoking his suo-motu powers and called upon the petitioner to appear for an enquiry on 31.05.2005, which was served on him only on 26.05.2005, the petitioner was ill and indisposed of on that day, hence, he made a representation by way of telegram and letter both dated 30.05.2005 requesting the first respondent to adjourn the said enquiry to some other date, but refused to adjourn the case and the enquiry was conducted by the first respondent on 31.05.2005, who without affording proper opportunity to the petitioner passed an order dated 01.06.2005, which is challenged in this writ petition.

.3. Mrs. Hema Sampath, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has purchased the petition mentioned property on 211. 1970 and considering his continuous possession only, the Assistant Settlement Officer had issued patta in his name and reclassification was ordered in favour of the petitioner and later the regular Tahsildar issued patta as such, it is not open to the first respondent to invoke his suo motu power canceled the reclassification; that the notice was served on the petitioner seeking assistance of a Bank Manager, which is unusual and strange; that the hearing was held within six days from the date of notice, hence, the petitioner unable to file objections referring to various documents relating to more than 30 years, thus, the first respondent has passed the impugned order on the next day i.e., 01.06.2005 hurriedly without affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. In any event, the impugned order is not a valid order as the first respondent has no jurisdiction to invoke suo motu powers and prayed for quashing of the same.

4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner, challenging the show cause notice dated 13.05.2005 has filed WP No. 18206 of 2005 in which this Court originally granted interim stay which was subsequently vacated and the said writ petition is still pending; that the first respondent has rightly passed the impugned order invoking his suo motu powers as custodian of government land as well as the au