ORDER :

It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition that the properties to an extent of 2.89 acres comprised in S.No.37 and 4.87 acres comprised in S.No.32 of Nanganallur Village, Alandur Taluk, originally belonged to one Vijayarangan Pillai and Mohanarangan Pillai. In the said lands, they had constructed Pidari Pachaiamman temple for worship. Subsequently, the said lands were sold to one Duraisamy Pillai and after his death, his son Chinnathambi had taken over the temple and the said lands and after the death of Chinnathambi, his son, viz. Subbaraya Pillai was in possession of the property. It is further stated that since the family members were unable to devote full attention for maintaining the temple and the aforesaid properties, they formed an Association, viz. Arulmighu Pidari Pachaiamman Temple Association on 12.01.1983 and they took over the management of the temple and continued enjoyment of the properties. Thereafter, the Association passed a Resolution at its meeting held on 01.03.1992 for sale of the aforesaid properties and one Pandian, the husband of the first petitioner, entered into an agreement of sale. Thereafter, the said Pandian passed away and the legal representatives of the said Pandian, the petitioners herein, requested the vendors to execute the sale deed in their favour and finally upon a decree of specific performance passed in the suit in O.S.No.742 of 2001 by the Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu on 31.10.2003, sale deed was also registered through Court on 28.10.2004 and the petitioners herein took delivery of the property through Court on 11.04.2005 and since then, they are in possession and enjoyment of the property.

2. According to the petitioners, who are represented through a Power of Attorney Agent, the petitioners herein are in possession and enjoyment of the property, but in the Government records, the said property has been recorded as Pidari Pachaiamman Thottam and Koil and it has been shown as Government Poramboke. Hence the petitioners made an application to the first respondent putting forth all the aforesaid facts, requesting to transfer patta in the name of the petitioners in respect of the lands in question.

3. The petitioners state that thereafter, the first respondent has directed the second respondent to conduct a spot inspection and also to give a report as to the nature of property and accordingly a report has also been submitted to the first respondent herein, but however, till date the application submitted by the petitioners for transfer of patta has not been considered and no order has been passed. In these circumstances, it is also stated by the petitioners that the officials of the third respondent entered into the said lands and attempted to interfere with their possession and they have also put up some temporary construction in the said lands. On enquiry by the petitioners, they came to know that the officials are planning to put up a Park in the said place. Hence the petitioners have come up with this writ petition for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 herein to transfer patta in favour of the petitioners herein in respect of the property in question, on the ground that the lands belong to the petitioners herein.

4. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has specifically submitted that only upon a decree of specific performance passed in the suit in O.S.No.742 of 2001 by the Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu on 31.10.2003, sale deed was registered through Court on 28.10.2004 by which petitioners herein took delivery of the property through Court on 11.04.2005. In such circumstance, it is not proper on the part of the officials of the third respondent, to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in question.

5. Mr. S.R. Rajagopal, learned Additional Advocate General, appeared for the first respondent and Mr. V. Jayaprakash Narayanan, learned Government Pleader f