The court emphasized the importance of procedural compliance with the Act, the principles of natural justice, and the Revisional Authority's power to call for records and provide a reasonable opportunity for representation before passing any prejudicial order.

The prayer in the Writ Petition is for a writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the respondents relating to the order of the 1st respondent in K.Dis.4446/2009/E1 dt.11.1.2010 confirming the order of the 2nd respondent in R.Dis.2328-07(C) dt.29.12.2008 and quash the same.

2. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners and the fourth respondent are the sons of one late Chinnanna Gounder. Apart from these three sons, two other sons also were there and one out of the two already died and the remaining one is not in the picture in the current issue raised in this Writ Petition.

3. According to the petitioners, the father of the petitioners had been the owner of a number of landed properties at their native village and during his lifetime, several new properties also had been acquired by him and some of the properties, in fact had been acquired in the name of his sons including the petitioners as well as the fourth respondent. While so, in order to make some family arrangements to inherit the family properties which are large extent of landed properties, some oral partition had taken place and based on which, properties have been partitioned. Accordingly, separate pattas were given by sub-dividing each of the properties and to that effect, the Tahsildar concerned, i.e., the third respondent had issued a detailed proceedings on 29.05.1989. In the said proceedings of the Tahsildar, several properties had been sub-divided and patta have been given separately for the petitioners as well as the fourth respondent.

4. In so far as the present issue is concerned, it revolves only in the property situate at Survey No.20/3C2 at Chinna Soragai Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District. According to the said proceedings of the Tahsildar dated 29.05.1989, the said property at survey No.20/3C2 had been sub-divided into three properties namely, 20/3C2A, 20/3C2B and 20/3C2C. The said three sub-divided properties had been entrusted to first and second petitioners as well as the fourth respondent. In other words, 20/3C2A was given to the fourth respondent, 20/3C2B was given to the second petitioner and 20/3C2C was given to the first petitioner.

5. According to the petitioners, as per the said oral partition and as per the subsequent proceedings of the Tahsildar concerned, dated 29.05.1989, parties had acted upon as per the said oral partition and the proceedings of the Tahsildhar and had been enjoying the respective properties inherited by them, including the properties which is in question i.e., 20/3C2. After some years, on 04.04.2007, the fourth respondent had filed an appeal before the second respondent under Section 12 of the Patta Pass-Book Act,1983(Tamil Nadu Act 4 of 1986)(herein after referred to as, Act). The said appeal filed by the fourth respondent questioning the sub-division and entrustment of property at Survey No.20/3C2 was heard and decided by the second respondent in their order dated 29.12.2008. In the said order, the second respondent after having set-aside the order passed by the Tahsildar dated 29.05.1989, in so far as the said property, i.e., 20/3C2, had directed the Tahsildar concerned to record separate Patta for the entire land of 0.85.5 areas at Survey No.20/3C2 in the name of the fourth respondent.

6. Aggrieved by the said order of the second respondent, the petitioners had preferred a revision before the first respondent on 31.01.2009, wherein the petitioners had raised objections and grounds against the order passed by the second respondent. The said revision filed by the petitioners was taken into consideration by the first respondent. However, without going into the merits of the issue raised by the revision petitioners and without hearing the parties concerned, by giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the first respondent has passed a cryptic order by the impugned proceedings in MM 446/09/E1 dated 11.01.2010. In the said order which is impugned herein, the first respondent has simply rejected th