1. The writ petition is filed for against the orders dated 18.01.2010, 30.07.2008 and 13.11.2007 passed by the respondents 1 to 3 respectively to quash the same and to consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to remove the name of the 4th respondent in the Joint patta in question and to replace the petitioner name in respect of 1.9 acres in S.No.426/1 and 427/1 Sowripalayam Village, Coimbatore.

2. Though the relationship between the 4th respondent and one Radhakrishnan who was the original owner of the property in question as father and son is admitted by the contesting parties the legality of the relationship between the petitioner and the said Radhakrishnan as husband and wife is not admitted on the side of the 4th respondent. It is suffice to say for the purpose of disposing of the instant case that the petitioner/Savithri who is the divorced w/o B.Narendran had been living with the original owner of the property as husband and wife at one point of time. During that period Radhakrishnan executed settlement deed in respect of the property in question in favour of one Vikram who is according to the petitioner the son of the petitioner born through the said Radhakrishnan according to the 4th respondent he is the son born to the petitioner through her ex-husband. Be that as may, the said Vikram has in turn executed settlement deed in respect of the same property in favour of the petitioner who is his mother and the petitioner has in pursuance of the same approached the 3rd respondent/Tahsildar for including her name in the joint patta having numbers 324 and 411 respectively, in respect of the lands in question and her name was included along with other joint patta holders in respect of both the survey numbers. While so, the said Radhakrishnan left the petitioner and rejoined his son 4th respondent and has been living with his son. While so, he executed deed of revocation of the settlement executed in favour of Vikaran and has further executed settlement deed in respect of the same property in favour of his son/4th respondent. The 4th respondent has on the strength of the settlement has approached the Tahsildar for transfer of patta in his name and the Zonal Tahsildar has passed an order on 13.11.2007 thereby, directing the name of the 4th respondent to be jointly included in both patta in respect of the lands in question.

3. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent has passed the final order on 30.07.2008 to the effect that during the pendency of O.S.No.24 of 2008 filed by the 4th respondent no final decision can be taken in this regard and the petitioner is advised to renew her application subject to the outcome of O.S.No.24 of 2008. Aggrieved against the same the petitioner filed further appeal to the District Revenue Officer/first respondent and the District Revenue Officer has confirmed the order of the second respondent and the correctness and validity of the order passed by all the three authorities is now challenged in this writ petition.

4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has challenged the correctness of the order on the following grounds (1) the settler Radhakrishnan who executed the settlement deed in favour of Vikram has no right to unilaterally revoke the settlement deed and to settle it in favour of the 4th respondent (2) the Zonal Tahsildar has transferred the patta from the name of the petitioner to the name of the 4th respondent, without any notice, and any personal hearing to the petitioner, as such the order impugned herein is in violation of well laid down procedure and the principles of natural justice (3) the orders of the appellate and the revisional authority directing the parties to settle the issue regarding the title before the civil forum and thereafter, to approach the revenue authorities for correction in the revenue entry. According to the petitioner, the impugned orders passed withou