The court emphasized that the revenue authorities do not have the power to decide title disputes and that aggrieved parties should seek relief through the civil court as per Section 14 of the Patta Pass Book Act, 1963.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order, dated 25-06-2013, vide proceedings in Ni.Mu.4861/2012(A1) passed by the 2nd respondent and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the 3rd respondent to delete the name of the 4th respondent from the patta in respect of S.Nos.312/2 and 312/3, Keezhamabur Village, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District, so as to restore the same in its original position as in patta Nos.217 & 622.

2. The brief facts, which are necessary to decide the issues involved in this writ petition, are as follows :-

2(a) According to the petitioner-Trust, the land measuring to an extent of 81 ½ cents in S.No.312/2 and the land measuring to an extent of northern 36 cents out of 72 cents in S.No.312/3 belong to them-Trust. Patta No.217 relates to the land in S.No.312/2 and Patta No.622 relates to the land in S.No.312/3.

2(b) Originally, the land in S.No.312/2 and other adjacent properties in Keezhambaur Village, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District, belonged to one Valliammal. On 22.07.1939, she executed three sale deeds, in favour of three persons viz., (i)Ramasamy Nadar, (ii) Vella Pandi Nadar (iii) Gopal Nadar S/o. Seeni Nadar @ Petchi Muthu Nadar, who are brothers. Each purchaser, in other words each of the brothers, purchased 20 ½ cents and thus, they totally purchased 61 ½ cents out of 81 ½ cents in S.No.312/2. But, the patta in respect of the entire extent of 81 ½ cents stood in the name of one of the purchasers, viz., Gopal Nadar and the patta number is 217. The said Gopal Nadar was paying kist ever since from the date of purchase and the adangal in respect of the said land measuring 81 ½ cents also stood in his name. Thus, Gopal Nadar and his family members were in exclusive possession and enjoyment of total extent of the land in Survey No.312/2, for more than 55 years. Subsequently, the son of Gopal Nadar, viz., Junior Gopal Nadar sold 81 ½ cents in S.No.312/2 to the petitioner-Trust under a registered sale deed dated 22.11.1994. The mutation was also effected in favour of the petitioner-Trust in Patta No.217, in respect of Survey No.312/2. Ever since from the date of purchase, the petitioner-Trust has been paying the kist to the Government and the petitioner-Trust is in possession and enjoyment of the property in S.No.312/2.

2(c) Similarly, the petitioner-Trust purchased the northern 36 cents out of 72 cents in S.No.312/3 under a registered sale deed, dated 18.08.1992, from Kalasamy Nadar S/o. Kandasamy Nadar and Kandasamy Nadar S/o. Ramsamy Nadar @ Chelliah Nadar. Originally, the said land viz., northern 36 cents out of 72 cents in S.No.312/3 belonged to one Gomathi @ Michael Ammal and her husband Gnanamuthu Nadar, from whom the father of Kalasamy Nadar, viz., senior Kandasamy Nadar purchased the said property under a sale deed dated 02.02.1933. Patta No.622 relates to the said land viz., northern 36 cents out of 72 cents in S.No.312/3.

2(d) Thus, the petitioner-Trust is in possession and enjoyment of the land measuring to an extent of 82 ½ cents in S.No.312/2 and northern 36 cents out of 72 cents in S.No.312/3.

2(e) While so, the 4th respondent herein had filed a petition on 18.08.2009 before the 3rd respondent to change the entries in the patta in her name. According to the 4th respondent, she had purchased the land measuring 82 cents in S.No.312/2 from one K.Samuel on 06.09.2009 under Document No.1263/09 and similarly, she had purchased the land measuring 2 acres 83 cents in S.No.312/3 from one Thiraviyam on 22.04.2009 under Document No.531/09. Hence, she filed a petition on 18.08.2009 before the 3rd respondent to change the entries in the patta in her name. The petitioner herein-Trust has filed objections on 18.01.2010 before the 3rd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that without giving any reasonable opportunity and without conducting proper enquiry, t