The main legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of the first respondent to cancel the patta and direct sub-division proceedings, as well as the need to await the decision of the Civil Court in an ongoing property dispute.

1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to quash the order passed by the first respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram in his proceedings, dated 26.11.2013. By the said order, the patta granted in favour of the petitioner in respect of the property in question was cancelled and direction was issued to the second respondent, the Tahsildar, Solinganallur Taluk, to identify the property to enable the third respondent to take possession.

2. The petitioner's case is that he is the absolute owner of the property bearing plot No.239, Ram Nagar, South Extension, measuring an extent of about 4800 sq.ft., having purchased the same by the Registered sale deed, dated 30.10.2012. The petitioner was issued patta bearing patta No.15833, dated 05.12.2012. The petitioner intended to develop the property and divided the same into two plots and appointed a power agent for making construction in an extent of about 2400 sq.ft. In respect of the remaining extent of 2400 sq.ft., on the eastern side, another power agent was appointed for putting up construction. The developers applied to the Corporation of Chennai for Planning Permission and on receipt of the application, the Planning Authority requested the second respondent to survey the plot for the purpose of demarcation and marking the linear measurements. The second respondent conducted the survey and submitted a report to the Corporation pursuant to which two separate planning permissions were granted. The developers of the property are said to have commenced construction, while so, the third respondent interfered with the construction activities and therefore, the petitioner filed a Suit in O.S.No.821 of 2013, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Alandur for a permanent injunction against the third respondent. The Civil Court granted an order of interim injunction on 08.09.2013, and the Suit is pending. Parallely, the third respondent filed a petition before the second respondent to cancel the patta granted in favour of the petitioner and issue fresh patta in her favour. The second respondent by proceedings dated 24.09.2013, while forwarding the application of the third respondent to the first respondent recommended for grant of patta in favour of the third respondent. Pursuant thereto, the first respondent issued notice dated 20.10.2013, for an enquiry and the petitioner appeared for the enquiry along with his counsel on 04.11.2013. It is stated by the petitioner that the enquiry on the said date was adjourned and the petitioner was informed that fresh date of enquiry will be intimated. Therefore, the counsel for the petitioner is said to have filed vakalat before the first respondent and the petitioner was awaiting notice to be issued for fresh date of hearing. Thereafter, the first respondent passed the order dated 26.11.2013, which is impugned in this Writ Petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner after referring to the factual details as mentioned above, submitted that the order passed by the first respondent is unreasonable and arbitrary and wholly without jurisdiction. That the first respondent passed the impugned order without opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and therefore, the order is in violation of principle of natural justice. Further, it is submitted that there is no power for the first respondent to direct the second respondent to put the third respondent in possession of the property. Further, it is submitted that the first respondent failed to take into consideration the Suit, which is pending before the Civil Court.

4. The official respondents have not filed counter affidavit and the learned Government Advocate based on the materials available sought to sustain the impugned order by contending that after following proper procedure, the first respondent has passed the order and if the petitioner is aggrieved, he has to prefer an appeal as against the impugned order.

5. The