The petitioner herein seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 20.12.2004 made by the second respondent reversing the order of the first respondent dated 25. 1998. The challenge to the said proceedings is on the ground that the second respondent had failed to take into account the report of the field staff and other revenue officials. It is further stated that the petitioner had title to the property, which the second respondent had ignored. The patta was granted to the petitioner on 25. 1998 and the lands are under the cultivation of the petitioner. Consequently, the proceedings of the second respondent suffers from material illegality deserving to be set aside by this Court.

2. The petitioners mother, one Pavayee Ammal, purchased an extent of 7.33 acres of land out of a total extent of 8.87 acres of land in Singalanthapuram Village in Rasipuram Taluk under Sale Deed dated 16. 1955. The lands in question were sold by the legal heirs of one Palani Naickkan. Eversince the purchase, the lands were cultivated continuously by raising punja crops. However, when the village had been taken over by the Government under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Estate (Abolition and Conversion) Act 26 of 1948, an extent of 6.40 acres in S.No.11 was classified as Kuttai Poramboke under the settlement proceedings, introduced in the year 1950.

3. Admittedly, during the settlement proceedings, the petitioners mother did not obtain patta for an extent of 02.84 cents in S.No.11. The result is, in the settlement proceedings, the said area was marked as Tank Poramboke. Realising that patta had not been granted to the above-said lands, the petitioner applied for grant of patta before the first respondent and sought for re-classification of entries made in the Revenue Registers. The petitioner produced necessary documents of title before the District Revenue Officer. By proceedings dated 27.05.1998 in Reference No.Ni.Mu.17979/1998/L-2, the District Revenue Officer granted patta to the petitioner for the lands comprised in S.Nos.11/2 and 11/3 measuring 0.25.0 Hectares and 0.09.0 Hectares respectively. The petitioners family members are in continuous occupation, cultivating the same with punja crops.

4. The contention of the petitioner is that the lands in Survey Nos.11/2 and 11/3 in the village are never a Tank Poramboke nor suffering inundation to be called either as a Tank or as water spread area. In these circumstances, the reliance placed by the second respondent on the Survey Land Register rejecting the claim of the petitioner, is totally unsustainable.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to the provisions of the Act, particularly to Sections 315 and 316 of the Estate Abolition Act, to submit that when S.No.11 was inspected by the District Revenue Officer, he noted the cultivation of crops and that the predecessors of Pavayee Ammal and her successors-in-interest, including the petitioner, are in continuous ownership and enjoyment of the property. On inspection, the entire area was noted as agricultural lands and not a Kuttai, as noted in the revenue records, there being no access to water flow. Hence, going by G.O.Ms.No.1300, Revenue dated 30.4.1971 and Sections 49 and 74 of the the Tamil Nadu Estate (Abolition and Conversion) Act 26 of 1948, the lands in question have to be re-classified as per the Field Map. He pointed out that the show cause notice issued by the second respondent was only on two aspects, namely, that the time limit for seeking patta was over as early as 30.6.1975 as per G.O.Ms.No.1300, Revenue dated 30.4.1971 and lastly extended by G.O.Ms.No.589, C.T. & R.E., dated 15. 1975; hence, the petitioners claim for patta could not be granted, it being time barred. Secondly, the criteria for grant of patta as per G.O.Ms.No.1300 dated 30.4.1971 is one of continuous possession and enjoyment. The second respondent took the view that no evidence is found as regards the continuous posses