their additional counter affidavit have highlighted the factual aspects on the basis of which they have decided to issue Ext.P-7 certificate in favour of the 3rd respondent. Sri.M.C.John, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has contended that the writ petitioner was never granted any reasonable opportunity to participate in the inquiry process conducted by the Revenue officials concerned (1st respondent), which led to the issuance of Ext.P-7 certificate. Though this submission made on behalf of the petitioner may be factually correct, the petitioner has not been able to establish cogently as to whether the 1st respondent Village Officer had an obligation to afford a reasonable opportunity of being to the writ petitioner before issuing Ext.P-7 certificate in favour of the 3rd respondent inasmuch as the official respondents cannot be imputed with any knowledge regarding any relationship between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent's family including her mother Smt.Ponnamma as admittedly, the petitioner and the 3rd respondent's family are not blood relatives, but are related only through marriage inasmuch as Smt.Ponnamma (mother of R-3 herein) is the mother of the husband of the petitioner's sister. That apart, more crucially the disputes primarily are in the realm of civil
