2-3.According to the petitioners, one Mr.C.A.Malick, C.A.Khabeer and Mr.C.Hussain Basha, who are having no rights, title or interest in the subject property, have filed a suit in O.S.No.8667 of 1985 on the file of the learned VI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, for injunction and declaration against the vendor of the petitioners viz., Mehrunnisa and her eight children and three other government departments. Subsequently, the said persons, along with others, have filed three other separate suits also in O.S.Nos.159, 160 and 161 of 1986 in respect of the same subject property. The counsel for the petitioners' vendor informed her that the suit in O.S.No.8667 of 1985 was dismissed for default on 28.11.1988 and as such, she had no occasion to know about the exparte decree passed in the said suit. In fact, the subsequent three suits in O.S.Nos.159, 160 and 161 of 1986 were also dismissed by the Court below on 28.02.2002. But, later, on verification of the registers in the Court below, the petitioners came to know that the suit in O.S.No.8667 of 1985, which is said to have been dismissed for default on 28.02.2002, was decreed exparte on 11.11.1989. According to the petitioners, the 4th respondent herein who is the power agent of the said C.A.Khabeer, by suppressing the above facts, approached the Respondents 1 to 3 to cancel the patta which was issued in the name of the petitioners. The 3rd respondent, Tahsildar, who conducted the enquiry without considering the submissions of the petitioners and without giving sufficient opportunities to the petitioners to find out the entire facts about the lands, acted hurriedly in biased manner and arbitrarily cancelled the patta, with a finding that the petitioners have not produced the Original Sale Deed dated 25.11.1986 in the enquiry. According to the petitioner, the said Origional Sale Dee dated 25.11.1986 had been pledged with a Pawn Broker for obtaining loan to meet the educational expenses of the son of the 1st petitioner. Against the order of the 3rd respondent, Tahsildar, the petitioners have preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent-RDO, who after verifying the Original Sale Deed dated 25.11.1986 registered as Document No.2609 of 1986 produced by the petitioners, has confirmed the order passed by the Tahsildar, without giving any findings. Against the order of the RDO, the petitioners have preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent-DRO, who has also confirmed the order of the Tahsildar. Hence, the petitioners have come forward with the present writ petition.
