ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent relating to the proceedings issued in Check Slip No.1, dated 18.06.2018, quash the same and consequently, direct the second respondent to accept the presentation of Settlement Deed to be presented by the petitioner in favour of her son Manohar, son of Venkatasamy in respect of lands to an extent of 1.26 acres in Survey No.85/4 of Poodhimutlu Village, Krishnagiri Taluk and District covered by Patta No. 623 and register the same and return the registered Settlement Deed in accordance with law, within the time to be stipulated by this Court.

2. Heard Mr.R.Bharath Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.Kumarpal R.Chopra, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the land comprised in survey No.85/4 to an extent of 0.51.0 hectares situated at Poodhimutlu Village, Krishnagiri Taluk, belong to one Kariya Gowdu and Kaiya Gowdu and their two sons. One of their son Narayana Gowdu was given in adoption to one Malliya Gowdu. However, the other three persons were in possession and enjoyment of the said property. The said Narayana Gowdu or his family members never claimed any right or interest of their title over the property at any point of time. After demise of all the legal heirs, the petitioner, as surviving legal heir, to succeed their estate, she is in possession and enjoyment of the said property. She was married.

4. While being so, the father of the fourth respondent assisted the petitioner's grandmother in cultivation. Suddenly, the petitioner's grandmother died on 16.06.1984 and taking advantage of the same, the father of the fourth respondent herein misrepresented before the Revenue Authorities during UDR regarding ownership of the subject land and obtained patta. In the year 2014, the petitioner applied for patta and came to know about the patta issued in favour of the fourth respondent. Therefore, the third respondent directed the petitioner to approach the first respondent to rectify the errors in the revenue records in view of G.O.Ms.No.385, Revenue Department, dated 17.08.2004. The petitioner also submitted the petition on 31.12.2013 to the first respondent to rectify the errors in the revenue records. On receipt of the same, the first respondent instructed the third respondent to conduct an enquiry and submit report. The third respondent conducted enquiry and sent a report dated 09.01.2015. However, the fourth respondent failed to appear for enquiry and the third respondent had sent a report dated 16.11.2015 to the first respondent recommonding the case of the petitioner and recommended to issue patta in favour of the petitioner. In fact, this Court, by an order dated 13.02.2017 in W.P.No.3449 of 2017, directed the first respondent to dispose of her representation. Accordingly, the first respondent ordered for issuance of patta and the third respondent registered the name of the petitioner in the revenue records by an order dated 10.04.2018 and issued patta in her favour.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner intended to settle the subject property in favour of her son and presented the document of the settlement deed dated 18.06.2018 for registration. However, the second respondent without registering the same on the ground that the father of the fourth respondent has already settled the said property in favour of the fourth respondent by a settlement deed dated 04.02.2004 vide document No.95 of 2004. Therefore, the second respondent had sent the impugned notice dated 18.06.2018 and returned the document which was presented for registration by the petitioner. The petitioner as well the fourth respondent claimed title over the subject property and as such, it requires detailed enquiry. Therefore, the second respondent is directed to issue notice to t