M. Venugopal, J.

1. W.A.(MD) No.738 of 2013:- The Appellant/Tenth Respondent has focussed the instant Writ Appeal (MD) No.738 of 2013 as against the order dated 13/3/2013 in W.P. (MD) No.14451 of 2010 passed by the Learned Single Judge in dismissing the Writ Petition (filed by the First Respondent/Writ Petitioner.

2. W.A.(MD) No.744 of 2013:- The Appellant/Fourth Respondent has filed the instant Writ Appeal (MD) No.744 of 2013 as against the order dated 13/3/2013 in W.P.(MD) No.1473 of 2012 passed by the Learned Single Judge in allowing the Writ Petition (filed by the First Respondent/Petitioner.

3. W.A.(MD) No.891 of 2013:- The Appellant/Writ Petitioner has filed the present Writ Appeal (MD) No.891 of 2013 as against the order dated 13/3/2013 in W.P.(MD) No.14451 of 2010 passed by the Learned Single Judge in dismissing the Writ Petition.

4. W.A.(MD)No.892 of 2013:- The Appellant/Respondent has filed the instant Writ Appeal (MD) No.892 of 2013 as against the order dated 13/3/2013 in W.P.(MD) No.1473 of 2012 passed by the Learned Single Judge in allowing the Writ Petition.

5. W.P.(MD) No.13589 of 2013:-The Writ Petitioner has preferred the instant writ of mandamus praying for the issuance of a direction by this Court in directing the respondents 1 to 5 to forbear the respondents 6 and 7 from converting the play ground in T.S.Nos.1300, 1302/2, 1309/2, 1310, 1311 New T.S.Nos.48, 49, 52, 21 Town Survey Ward No.5 Building bearing No.2 Harvey Nagar, 1st Street, Technical School West 13th Street, Madurai 16 into any concrete structure or alter the usage of land for any other purpose and to consequently direct the respondents to restore the play ground to its original position, within the time stipulated by this Court.

6. The Learned Single Judge, while passing the common Order dated 13/3/2013 in W.P.(MD) No.14451 of 2010 and W.P.(MD) No.1473 of 2012, in paragraph 32, has inter alia observed as under:-

"32. In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer some decisions relied on by the 7th respondent. In 2001 (3) CTC 757 (supra), this Court has held that the issue with regard to right could be decided only on adducing evidence and Court cannot consider disputed questions of fact and also decide rights of parties governed by agreement in writ jurisdiction. In 2011 (5) CTC 94 (supra), a Division Bench of this Court has held that if there is a dispute regarding title between the parties, this Court normally will not entertain the writ petition and adjudicate the disputed questions. So far as the present case is concerned, even according to the petitioner Association, they are using the auditorium and other places only with the permission of management of the 6th respondent. If really the disputed land belongs to the petitioner Association, there is no need for them to get permission from the 6th respondent Management. Under such circumstances, they ought to have filed a civil suit at the relevant point of time itself seeking declaration of their right. Therefore, I am of the firm view that the writ petition by the petitioner Association is not maintainable on the ground of not only laches but also there are series disputed questions of fact. When there are disputed questions of fact, the Revenue Divisional Officer ought to have directed the parties to approach the civil Court and instead of doing so, he had cancelled the patta, which, in my view, is not proper and correct. Therefore, the said order is liable to be quashed."

and consequently, dismissed the Writ Petition (MD) No.14451 of 2010 without costs and allowed the Writ Petition (MD) No.1473 of 2012 without costs by setting aside the impugned Order dated 2/2/2012 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai.

7. Counter averments of the Seventh Respondent in W.A.(MD) No.738 of 2013, Sixth Respondent in W.A.(MD) No.891 of 2013 and Sixth Respondent in W.P.(MD) No.14451 of 2010:- The Appellant/Welfare Association {in W.A.(MD) No.891 of 2013)/Petitioner in W.P.(MD)