The main legal point established in the judgment is that the District Revenue Officer has the authority to conduct an enquiry regarding the cancellation of patta, and a writ against the notice of enquiry does not lie.

1. These Writ Petitions have been filed, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, forbearing the second respondent from proceeding with the enquiry, pursuant to the summons, dated 29.08.2007, vide his proceedings in 05/30546/07.

2. With consent of the parties, the Writ Petitions are taken up for final disposal. Since both the Writ Petitions involve a similar issue, they are being disposed in common.

3. The facts are as follows :

1. One N.Sankaranarayana Sarma originally owned the property bearing Door No.57, Habibullah Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-17, comprised in Old Town Survey No.6889, New Town Survey No.8064, Block No.107, Mambalam Guindy Taluk, Chennai District, measuring 2 grounds and 1388 sq.ft., hereinafter referred to as "the subject property". The said Sankaranarayana Sarma settled the subject property in the name of his only son Neelakanta Sarma by virtue of a Deed of Settlement, dated 20.10.1950, registered as Document No.771/1950, retaining life interest with him, since he and his wife were settled in Malaysia and his son Neelakanta Sarma, who is settled in India. The said Sankaranarayana Sarma, first settlor, and his son Neelakanta Sarma, second settlor, have again jointly executed a Deed of Settlement, dated 210. 1951, registered as Document No.790/1950, in and by which they settled the subject property in favour of the grandsons of the first settlor and sons of the second settlor, namely, (1) Sankaranarayana Sarma @ Chittibabu and (2) Janakiraman @ Haribabu and any other issues that may be born to the said Neelakanta Sarma, subsequent to the settlement to be taken by them absolutely after the life time of the settlors. Seetharama Sarma @ Raja was born to Neelakanta Sarma subsequent to the above Deed of Settlement, dated 210. 1951. Sankaranarayana Sarma, original owner and first settlor, died on 012. 1956 and after his death, the subject property absolutely devolved on his son Neelakanta Sarma and his sons Sankaranarayana Sarma, Janakiraman and Seetharama Sarma, who are the beneficiaries under the above deeds of settlement, and they divided the subject property with a common pathway, to give access to the rear portions and sold the same to various persons including the petitioners, who are the tenants in occupation of the subject property.

3. 2. The third respondent and his vendors are fully aware of the land and building purchased and possessed by the petitioners and others as owners and that the petitioners have been paying property tax, E.B.charges, Water and Sewerage charges only in their names and that they have also obtained patta from the Taluk Office even in the years 1982 and 1990 and are in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same ever since the date of purchase.

3. 3. That being so, some of the original owners, who had already sold the entire subject property to the petitioners and others, divesting their title, again created void and bogus sale deeds in favour of the vendors of the third respondent and they, in turn, created bogus sale deed in favour of the third respondent. Thereafter, the vendors of the third respondent and the third respondent, with the aid of fabricated sale deeds in respect of the subject property, filed vexatious and false civil suits and other connected proceedings by filing false affidavits.

3. 4. The sale deeds in favour of the petitioners for the major portion of the subject property prevail over the later fabricated void sale deeds, alleged to have been executed for the same property in the year 1990 in favour of the third respondents vendors and the third respondent. Therefore, the vendors have no saleable or transferrable right to transfer the same to the third respondent.

5. At that stage, the petitioners received the impugned summons, dated 29.08.2007, from the second respondent. Hence, these Writ Petitions, at the instance of the petitioners.

.4. A counter has been filed by the respondents 1 and 2, stating that the notices issued to the petitioners