The central legal point established in the judgment is that the question of title regarding immovable property cannot be decided in a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution and should be addressed by a competent Civil Court.

1. The prayer in the Writ Petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the second respondent dated 31.3.2003, by which the second respondent set aside the order passed by the District Revenue Officer dated 6.3.2001, confirming the grant of patta in favour of the deceased first petitioner.

2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are that the petitioner purchased the lands in Survey No.1490/A/1B in Mudivaithanandal village, Tuticorin Taluk, by sale deed dated 2.9.1982 measuring an extent of 6.40 acres. The Tahsildar, Tuticorin, by an order dated 27.1.1983 granted patta in favour of the petitioner and patta pass Book was also issued. During 1986, when updation of land revenue scheme was implemented, notices were issued to the various pattadars calling for objections if any in cancelling the new sub-divisions in the said survey number. Thereafter a patta pass book No.1385 was issued in favour of the petitioner for the total extent of 6.40 acres in Survey No.1490/A/1B. On 28.9.1998, the respondents 3 to 6 filed an appeal for cancellation of patta granted in favour of the petitioner and others and the Revenue Divisional Officer by an order dated 5.4.2000, cancelled the patta issued in favour of the petitioner and directed that patta should be issued in favour of respondents 3 to 6 for an extent of four acres with definite boundaries. As against such order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the deceased first petitioner filed appeal to the District Revenue Officer and pending disposal of the appeal, an order of stay was also granted on 26.4.2000. Subsequently, the District Revenue Officer passed final orders allowing the appeal filed by the deceased first petitioner and confirmed the grant of patta in his name. As against such order, the respondents 3 to 6 herein filed revision before the second respondent and the second respondent by an order dated 31.3.2003, allowed the Revision Petition. This order of the second respondent is impugned in the present Writ Petition.

3. Elaborate submissions have been made by both sides and the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 6 took pains to bring to the notice of this Court, the various documents filed in support of their contentions.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

5. The case of the petitioner is that the second respondent failed to consider the effect of the sale deed executed in favour of the deceased petitioner and respondents 3 to 6 are not in possession of the property and they were not able to produce any document to prove their possession. Further, the second respondent failed to consider that even in the parent documents of the respondents 3 to 6, the boundary of the property is not clear and no specific boundary has been fixed in the document and that at present a criminal case has also been referred as mistake of fact. Further, it is contended that the respondents 3 to 6 have to work out their remedy before appropriate Civil Court for declaration of title as they are in possession of the property.

6. Further, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no proper enquiry was conducted when the Revenue Divisional Officer passed the order in the appeal petition filed by the respondents 3 to 6 and no opportunity was granted to cross examine the respondents 3 to 6 before the Revenue Divisional Officer. On the above grounds, the learned counsel submits that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 6 would contend that they purchased the extent of 4 acres of land in Survey No.1490/A1 by sale deed dated 18.10.1962 and eversince they have in possession and enjoyment and the father of the respondents 3 to 6 applied for patta and the Tahsildar, Tuticorin, granted joint patta on 25.2.1963 along with 28 others. In pa