The dispute could not be decided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and the transaction between the parties should be addressed in a civil forum. The Revenue Divisional Officer was directed to decide the issue without being influenced by the court's previous observation.

K. Suguna, J.

This writ appeal has been filed as against the order passed in W.P.No.9446 of 1995 dated 211. 2002. The petitioners in the writ petition are the appellants in this appeal.

2. The property in question is an agricultural land in the Melamadi Village, Madurai North. Originally they were given to the temple Archakaras of Kallalagar Devasthanam of Alagar Kovil, Madurai as a Service Manibam land. After the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1963 (Act 30 of 1963), came into force, an enquiry was conducted by the settlement Tahsildar and patta was granted in favour of one Pappammal. But on appeal, the same was cancelled. Consequential changes in the Taluk and Village records were made on the request of the sixth respondent infavour of whom, the same was originally given and a sum of Rs.1,28,480/-was fixed as Fair Rent by the Tahsildar, Madurai on 17.07.1995 and the said amount was also remitted by him.

3. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the sixth respondent become Pattayadhar of the land and he was in physical possession and enjoyment of the said land and further, he sold the said land in the year 1982 through three registered sale deeds covering .40 acres, .50 acres and .50 acres respectively on 09.03.2002 to the seventh, eighth and ninth respondents. The appellants have purchased the said land from the seventh, eighth and ninth respondents by way of three sale deeds executed on 27.05.1982. Subsequent to the purchase of the said land, the appellants were put in possession of the said lands and from that time onwards they were in continuous and uninterrupted enjoyment and possession of the said land. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the sixth respondent after a period of 12 years made an attempt to obtain fresh patta. Meanwhile, the Executive Officer of the Devasthanam, the tenth respondent took proceedings for resumption of the lands and filed a petition before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, against the sixth respondent, after having sold away the Inam land which was given for archagars service. The said petition had been filed by the temple under Section 21(7) of Act 30 of 1963 read with Section 41 of the H.R. & C.E. Act. During the pendency of the resumption proceedings, the Tahsildar basing on the orders of this Court in S.T.A.No.277 of 1976, issued orders dated 110. 1994 in favour of the sixth respondent granting patta subject to the provisions of Section 21 of Act 30 of 1963. Challenging the same the appellants filed the above said writ petition. The writ petition has been disposed of with the following observation;

"21. Bearing in mind the above state of affairs, I am inclined to record the following conclusions and order as follows:-

.(i) The petitioners have no right to question the impugned order as they cannot derive any better title than their vendors and hence not entitled to any relief. There is also no merit in the contention that they had perfected adverse title.

.(ii) There is no justification to keep the Resumption petition which was filed in the year 1993 pending till now, the rights of the parties have to ultimately abide by the result of the said petition filed under Section 21(7) of Act 30 of 1963. The Revenue Divisional Officer with whom the petition is pending is directed to forthwith commence the hearing after due notice to parties and dispose of the same within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The parties are directed to cooperate and unnecessary adjournments shall not be entertained.

(iii) Though the impugned order is a consequential order arising out of the earlier proceedings, considering that the said order does not take into account subsequent events of illegal alienation by the sixth respondent, the said order requires to be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the Resumption petition filed by the Devasthanam."

Aggrieved against the same, the