NOOTY. RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.

1. Since all the three Writ Appeals are directed against the judgment and order rendered by our learned Brother Justice M.SATHYANARAYANA, on 28th September, 2016 in W.P.No.2680/2013, all these three Writ Appeals were heard together by us. Hence, all the three Writ Appeals stand disposed of by this Common Judgment.

2. The W.A.No.1625/2016 is preferred by Dr.Usha Viswanathan, while W.A.No.1626/2016 is preferred by Ragini Rajkumar. Both the appellants are sisters and are residents of New Delhi. While W.A.915/2017 has been preferred by Nandakumar S/o. Balaji and three others. Mrs. Ragini was impleaded as 3rd respondent to the Writ Petition while Dr. Usha is impleaded as 8th respondent and the appellants in W.A.No.915/2017 are impleaded as respondents 4 and 7 to the writ petition instituted by the 1st respondent company herein.

3. The 1st respondent company has purchased the lands situated at 71/1, L.B.Road, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai, through a Registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.10756/2011 executed by 64 vendors on 07.10.2011. It is their claim that a land of a total extent of 4 acres 52 cents described in Schedule ''A'' of the Sale Deed, lying in Old Survey No.68/1 to the extent of 0.38 acres, in Survey No.68/2 to the extent of 0.41 acres, in Survey No.68/3 to an extent of 1 acre 49 cents and in Survey No.68/4 of an extent of 0.43 acres, in Survey No.69/1 to an extent of 1.81 acres, lying in Block No.30, T.S.No.13 comprised of No.140, Thiruvanmiyur Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District and an old dilapidated building bearing Corporation Door No.71/1 of L.B. Road of Thiruvanmiyur Village, Chennai have been purchased for a valuable consideration of Rs.32 Crores. Based upon the registered Sale Deed, the 1st respondent company appears to have approached the Tahsildar of Mylapore- Triplicane Taluk for grant of patta on 14.12.2011. Entertaining the said request, the Tahsildar appears to have granted a patta in favour of the 1st respondent company on 13.01.2012. Challenging the correctness of the order granting patta in favour of the 1st respondent, the matter was carried in appeal initially by Dr. Usha and Ragini and the other appellants have followed them later on.

4. The District Revenue Officer, passed orders on 07.01.2013 cancelling the patta issued by the Tahsildar, Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk on 13.01.2012 in favour of the 1st respondent company and restored the original revenue entry and also directed the Tahsildar, Mylapore- Triplicane Taluk to carry out the changes accordingly. It is, against this order dated 07.01.2013, the 1st respondent company has filed W.P.No.2680/2013. That is how, the learned Single Judge, had occasion to consider the entire issue by his judgment dated 28th September, 2016. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the impugned order dated 07.01.2013 passed by the District Revenue Officer and restored the patta granted in favour of the 1st respondent-Writ Petitioner by the Tahsildar on 13.01.2012. At the same time, the learned Single Judge has preserved liberty to the private respondents to approach the competent civil forum in the writ petition to work out their remedy in accordance with law. It is, this order, which is under challenge before us in these appeals.

5. Heard Mr. S.R. Rajagopal, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in W.A.No.1625/2016 and Mr. Ravi Paul, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in W.A.No.1626/2016 and Mr. Abdul Majeeth, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in W.A.No.915/2017. Sri V. Raghavachari, the learned Counsel appears for the 1st respondent/Writ Petitioner. The Special Government Pleader appeared on behalf of the official respondents.

6. Mr. S.R. Rajagopal, the learned Counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.1625/2016 would contend that the Revenue Record maintained over a long period of time has been reflecting the names of Usha and Ragini in the