The authorities must follow due process and consider civil rights in private property disputes.

S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.

1. The writ on hand filed challenging the order passed by the second respondent in proceedings dated 29.5.2017, confirming the order passed by the first respondent in proceedings dated 26.2.2015.

2. The writ petitioners state that the lands in S.No.287/1A1 measuring an extent of 3.45 acres, S.Nos.287/1A3B and 287/1A3A measuring an extent of 1 acre and 2.45 acres respectively and S.No.287/1A4, measuring an extent of 3.45 acres were developed by the writ petitioners as Gated Community Unapproved Lay Out Sites under the name Gopi Krishna Brindhavan. In respect of S.No.287/1A1, a 20 feet private road (16ft + 4 ft wide) was formed for the exclusive use and convenient enjoyment of community purchasers. This 20 feet wide private road abuts the lands belonging to the fourth respondent Mr.Thiru A.Syed Salauddin, S/o. Haji. Syed Ibrahim. In respect of S.No.287/1A2B and S.No.287/1A3A, a 33 feet wide private road (20 feet + 13 feet wide) was formed for the exclusive use and convenient enjoyment of community purchasers. This 33 feet wide private road abuts the lands belonging to the fourth respondent Mr.Thiru A.Syed Salauddin, S/o. Haji. Syed Ibrahim.

3. The writ petitioners as well as the fourth respondent have laid compound wall adjoining to each other lands and was in existence for long over the aforesaid two survey numbers. The field map annexed is self-explanatory. In fine, the entire 20 feet and 33 feet of land fall within the private holding of the writ petitioners. The 13 feet of the 33 feet referred above was sold by three registered Sale Deeds on 2.9.2013 and registered as Document Nos.6146, 6147 and 6148 of 2013 respectively in favour of the writ petitioners. Consequently, the writ petitioners have been given patta after due verification of records, the details of which are as under:-

S. No.	Classification	Extent in S.Ft.	Patta No.	Name of Pattadars
287/21	Dry	2253	5673	Mr.T.G.Nasveen, S/o. T.G.Gopinatha
287/22	Dry	2253	5674	Mr.T.G.Nirmal, S/o. T.G.Gopinathan
287/23	Dry	2253	5675	Mrs.P.G.Shobha, W/o. T.G.Gopinathan

4. The writ petitioners further states that the 4 feet of the 20 feet referred above was sold by a registered Sale Deed on 16.4.2013 and registered as Document No.4796 of 2013 in favour of one of the writ petitioner. The fourth respondent Syed Salavuddin, S/o.Haji Syed Ibrahim approached the first respondent and complained as if there had been a 33 feet road gifted by the writ petitioners to the Village Panchayath and that these writ petitioners have unauthorisedly obtained patta to the said lands and had accordingly requested to restore the pathway in our patta lands S.No.287/1A1A and 287/1A3A1A, so as to enable him to reach his lands. The representation was mischievous. As they had persons of the same clan they were accommodated and under R.C.1446/2015/A dated 26.2.2015, signed on 26.2.2016 cancelled the pattas with respect to the lands, 287/1A1A and 287/1A3A1A, thereby urging the authorities mentioned in the order therein to take note of said order and to restore the road in furtherance thereto.

5. However, the fourth respondent Syed Salavuddin, S/o.Haji Syed Ibrahim with the help of the authorities demolished the compound wall built by the writ petitioners to delineate their respective properties. The fact remains that the Sale Deed pertaining to the walls that existed and was demolished is duly registered in the name of the writ petitioners. The Tahsildar cannot treat the private property as an encroachment to enable them to exercise their authority.

6. Cancellation of patta, when title by Deeds and documents still stands in the name of owner cannot be a subject matter of investigation at the instance of the Revenue Authorities. Repeatedly, this Court had cautioned against such exercise. The first and the second respondents in their