The writ petition is directed against the proceedings of the second respondent, the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration dated 21.1.2003, by which the revision filed by the 5th respondent against the order of the third respondent dated 28.5.2002 came to be allowed by the second respondent.

2. The short facts leading to the passing of the impugned order in the revision are as under:

a) The Punja land in old survey No.14, new survey No.27 to an extent of 0.95.5 hectares in S.Kannanoor (West) village, Manachanallore taluk, Tiruchy District was given to two persons performing Nadhaswaram service in the temple. However, they were not in enjoyment of the same and even before that, the lands were in possession of third parties. From 1930 onwards one Angappan was in possession of the land and cultivating crops. He sold the property to one Muthuswami Pillai under a registered sale deed dated 31.10.1950, from whom one Rajaiya purchased the same under a sale deed dated 16.6.1959. He constructed a school by name Shri Mariamman School which was upgraded as Higher Secondary School. Since he was unable to manage the school, he sold the property along with the constructed building of the school to one Raju Pillai.

b) The petitioner is the foster son of the said Raju Pillai. After the death of the said Raju Pillai, the petitioner inherited the property by way of a Will executed by Raju Pillai on 24.5.1982 and therefore, he became the absolute owner and has been in possession from 1982. The petitioner as the Secretary of the School has got recognition from various authorities and the building plans have also been approved in his name. The 5th respondent temple has claimed title over the property based on the patta given in terms of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 30 of 1963 which was granted 31.1.1970.

c) After the above said fact was revealed, the petitioner made representation to the authorities for transfer of patta on the basis that the petitioner and his predecessor-in-title have been in possession from 1959 onwards and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the patta as per the Revenue Standing Order 31(7). On such representation, the 4th respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer found that there was no correlation between the property owned by the petitioner and the claim made by the 5th respondent and having found that the property was given as service inam to some other persons who were in possession of the property and the same was purchased by the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner and the petitioner is in possession of the property from 1959 onwards and the proceedings under the Act 30 of 1963 were not conducted following the procedures and without notice to the petitioner.

d) The 4th respondent also found that the enquiry conducted from 22.1.1970 to 31.1.1970 was suo motu in nature, without notice to the petitioner or any publication and as such the patta granted to the 5th respondent is not valid under law. In the said order it was stated that the Revenue Standing Order 31(7) would apply since the petitioner and his predecessor have been in possession conducting the school for more than 40 years. It is against the said order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 12.7.2000, the 5th respondent temple filed an appeal before the third respondent, the District Revenue Officer who confirmed the order of the 4th respondent on the ground that the petitioner and his predecessor have been in possession for more than 70 years and that order was passed by the third respondent on 28.5.2002.

e) It was against the said order, the 5th respondent filed a revision before the second respondent and that revision came to be allowed setting aside the orders of the 3rd and 4th respondents, against which the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the 5th respondent did not file the revision in time and there was