Patta cannotbe denied.

The writ petitioner is Sri Thiagarajaswami Devasthanamm, Tiruvarur and the petitioner is the owner of a poromboke land in S.No.8, Nagore town A grant was made for the said poromboke land under T.D.No.558 as a Devadayam grant in favour of the petitioner temple as annadhana kattalai, The said grant was an Iruvaram minor inam and after coming into force of the Madras Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act. 1963 ( Act 30 of 1963), the Assistant Settlement Officer, Thanjavur who conducted the enquiry, by his order dated 17. 1982, granted patta in favour of the petitioner in respect of Survey No.8(c), but, in respect of Survey Nos.8(a) and (b), he refused to issue patta. It is stated that the land comprised in Survey No.8 was sub-divided into 8(a), 8(b) and 8 (c). The petitioner, aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Thanjavur the appellate authority rejected the appeal. Then, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Madras-5, the first respondent therein and the first respondent rejected the revision petition.

2. The petitioner has challenged the order in the writ petition on the ground that patta should have been granted to the Inamdar of the land and not to the owner of the superstructure. It is stated that the respondents I to 3 should have applied the provisions of Sec.13 of the Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963 and held that the land would continue to vest with inamdar though there was a building which stood on the inam land on the appointed date. It is stated that the order of the first respondent refusing to grant patta in favour of the petitioner in respect of Survey Nos.8(a) and 8(b) and also directing the fourth respondent move the District Revenue Officer for patta outside the scope of the Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963 and under G.O.Ms.No.303, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowment, dated 23. 1987 is not sustainable in law.

3. The respondents 1 to 3 have filed a counter-affidavit stating that in respect of the land in survey No.8 measuring 20 acres 42340 sq.ft. iruvaram right was granted in favour of the petitioner. It is stated that it is a Minor Inam Devadayam Land, notified taken over under the Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963. It is stated that under the Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963, the settlement Tahsildar, in a suo motu enquiry, issued the patta in favour of the temple as the land in question was used as a house and appurtenance thereto, It is stated that against the order, the owner of the building, the fourth respondent took through proceedings before the Inam Abolition Tribunal which remanded the matter for fresh enquiry and disposal and in the remanded enquiry, it was found that under Sec.13 of the Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963, no one would be entitled to ground rent patta with reference to the land on which the building stood in view of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in K.Vellappa Gounder and sons, by partner K.Vellappa Gounder v. K.S.Thirunanasambandam Chettiar K.Vellappa Gounder and sons, by partner K.Vellappa Gounder v. K.S.Thirunanasambandam Chettiar K.Vellappa Gounder and sons, by partner K.Vellappa Gounder v. K.S.Thirunanasambandam Chettiar , (1981)1 MLJ. 192: 93 L.W. 707 and in the appeal, it was found that in respect of the site on which the buildings stood on the notified date and the adjacent premises occupied an appurtenance thereto, no one would be entitled to patta, It is stated that the revisional authority found that the buildings in question existed on the appointed date and admittedly, the coalescence of the ownership of the land and buildings was not proved and hence, the revisional authority ordered that it is for the owner of the buildings to move the District Revenue Officer for patta outside the scope of the Inams Abolition Act and the revision petition filed by the petitioner was rejected.

4. The case of respondents 1 to 3 is that t