The observation made by an administrative authority should not influence the rights of the parties before the Civil Court.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings dated 28.09.2012 of the first respondent in B1-C.M.No.27-2009 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to hold an enquiry by affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to this writ petitioner and others and thereafter dispose of the revision filed by the fourth respondent on merits.)

1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging an order passed by the District Revenue Officer in which Patta standing in the name of the writ petitioner was transferred in the name of the fourth respondent herein.

2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the property in dispute namely T.S.No.5 having an extent of 22581 sq.ft originally belongs to his father one K.Kalimuhtu Servai@ Samiahiah Servai. According to the first petitioner, he is the only legal heir of the said Kalimuhtu Servai. However, during the resurvey proceedings by mistake it was entered as K.Kalimuthu Servai, S/o.Sornakalai Servai. In the said circumstances, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the second respondent for rectifying the said mistake and for grant patta in his name. However, the fourth respondent had made a claim that the said K.Kalimuthu Servai is his grandfather and that his grandfather died leaving his father Chelladurai as his legal heir.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners had further contended that the second respondent herein by his proceedings dated 21.10.2008 allowed the claim of the petitioner and rejected the claim of the fourth respondent herein. In view of the said order, Patta was entered in the name of the writ petitioner. As against the same, the fourth respondent preferred a revision to the first respondent herein.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he had submitted his written objection to the revision on 14.07.2009. Since the petitioner entertained certain doubts about the attitude of the first respondent herein, he filed W.P.No.13027 of 2012 seeking a writ of mandamus forbearing the first respondent from in any manner disposing the revision without any enquiry and without affording sufficient opportunity to the writ petitioner. Along with the writ petition,the petitioner had filed an interim application. The writ petition was filed on 01.10.2012 and it came up for admission on 08.10.2012. The matter was adjourned with a direction to the Government Pleader to take notice and to get instruction and it was posted on 15.12.2012. When the matter was listed on 15.12.2012, it did not reach. The petitioner's counsel received the impugned order dated 28.09.2012 only on 21.10.2012. Hence, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the first respondent had got colluded with the fourth respondent. Hence, the present impugned order is liable to be set aside. The first respondent has also been impleaded in his personal capacity as sixth respondent herein.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents was directed to produce the files to verify whether the written objections have been received by the first respondent and the date on which the impugned order came to be passed. A perusal of the file, indicates that the last date of hearing of the revision was 26.09.2012 and the impugned order has been passed on 29.09.2012. Though the impugned order has been passed on 28.09.2012, the said order has been posted on 17.10.2012 and the cover has been received by the petitioners on 21.10.2012. The learned counsel for the respondents had further contended that only after hearing the writ petitioner in full and after considering his written submission, the order has been passed. That apart, the petitioner had obtained a legal heir certificate as if his father name is Kalimuthuu Servai when originally his father's name is Samiahiah. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

6. I have considere