R. Mahadevan, J.

1. Alleging that the lands granted to the petitioner temple as Inam, have been illegally transferred to the respondents 5 to 13, this writ petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in Na. Ka. B-2/25426/2010, dated 22.09.2012 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same as illegal, ultra vires and against the principles of natural justice.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the properties in S. No. 291/A measuring 8.53 acres; in S. No. 291/B measuring 0.85 cents and in S. No. 291/C measuring 2.30 acres in Pudupalayam village, Rajapalayam Taluk, were granted as Inam lands to the petitioner and the said grant is Devadayam. However, the fourth respondent transferred the patta in respect of the said lands in favour of the respondents 5 to 13 without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. By virtue of the Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963, the proceedings were initiated under the said Act in 48/Srivilliputtur/66, dated 01.03.1967 and the said lands were covered under the Inam Title Deed No. 178 and therefore, they are inalienable under the provisions of the said Act. Further, one Parasurama Ayyar, who was in the administration of the temple, had obtained the orders under Act 2 of 1927, in O.A. No. 83 of 1940 from the Board of Commissioners, Hindu Religious Endowment, wherein the temple has been excepted.

3. Aggrieved by the order of the fourth respondent in transferring the patta in the name of the respondents 5 to 13, the petitioner filed the appeal before the third respondent in Na. Ka. A-1/14533 of 2006 and the same was rejected by the third respondent by order dated 05.07.2010 (P-2), holding that the said lands were sold by the said Parasurama Battar to various persons. According to the petitioner, the said Parasurama Battar had no legal right to alienate the lands of the petitioner and it is illegal. Challenging the order of the third respondent, the petitioner preferred a revision before the second respondent, who, by the impugned order dated 22.09.2012, dismissed the revision. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. The second respondent filed the counter affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioner and stated that the title of the properties had been decided by the Settlement authorities only based on the documentary evidence adduced by the parties and that the said Parasurama Battar being the hereditary trustee sold the properties under the registered sale deeds during the years 1946 and 1947. It is denied that the said Parasurama Battar had no legal right to alienate the lands in question. Further, it is contended that the order passed by the Settlement Tahsildar under Section 8(2)(i)(b) of the Act 30 of 1963, regarding the lands in S. No. 291/A measuring 8.53 acres, is valid and the petitioner did not prefer any appeal till date. Hence, the second respondent prayed for the dismissal of this writ petition.

5. In the counter filed by the respondents 5 to 8, it is, among other things, contended that the temple has been under the continuous management of the said Parasurama Battar and since he is the descendant of the original grantee, sold the properties by way of various sale deeds to several persons during 1946 and 1947, through valid registered documents. Pursuant to the enquiry conducted by the Settlement Tahsildar as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inam Abolition Act, 1963, the above said sale deeds were accepted as they were in exclusive possession continuously for the entire relevant periods and held that the properties are Iruwaram Grant and also ordered to grant patta under Section 8(2)(i)(b) of the Act 30 of 1963, by order dated 01.03.1967, against which, no appeal was filed. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any right at this stage by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. The respondents 9 to 13 also filed their counter affidavit refuting the claim of the petitione