ORDER :

1. The impugned proceedings of the first respondent dated 02.02.2012, made in Na.Ka.Aa2/Se.Ma.No.22/2011, is the subject matter of challenge in the present Writ Petition.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the subject property situated in Survey No.286/8, measuring an extent of three acres originally belonged to late Somuammal, through a registered sale deed, dated 20.09.1935. The said Somuammal is the grandmother of the petitioner. On the demise of Somuammal, the property devolved upon her daughter Valliyammal. The said Valliyammal alienated a portion of the property measuring an extent of 1 Acre and 44 Cents in favour of several persons through various sale deeds.

3. The above said Valliyammal executed a Will, dated 22.08.2002, bequeathing the remaining property in favour of the petitioner. She died on 10.04.2003 and since then, the petitioner claims to be the owner of the subject property.

4. The petitioner made an application to the Tahsildar, Palayamkottai, seeking for issuance of patta in her name. The petitioner was directed to approach the second respondent and the second respondent conducted an enquiry and passed an order dated 03.09.2007 in favour of the petitioner and directed the Tahsildar, Palayamkottai to change the patta in the name of the petitioner by making necessary mutation in the revenue records. Accordingly, patta was issued in the name of the petitioner and necessary mutation was made in the revenue records.

5. The third respondent Corporation aggrieved by the same filed a Revision Petition before the first respondent and the Revision Petition was allowed by the first respondent by order dated 09.07.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.(MD).No.13676 of 2010 before this Court and this Court by order dated 29.06.2011, quashed the order passed by the first respondent and remanded the matter back to the file of the first respondent.

6. On remand, the first respondent again conducted an enquiry and passed the impugned order dated 02.02.2012. The same has been put to challenge before this Court in the present Writ Petition.

7. Heard Mr.M.Vallinayagam, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.V.Meenakshisundaram, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.M.Lingadurai, learned Standing Counsel for Government appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent, Mr.G.Prabhurajadurai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 5 to 8 and Mr.H.Lakshmishankar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 9 and 10.

8. When this matter came up for hearing on 08.11.2019, the issue that is involved in the present Writ Petition has been succinctly captured and the same is extracted hereunder:-

“Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner, Mr.K.Mu.Muthu, learned Additional Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1, 2 and Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar, learned Standing Counsel for third respondent are before this Court.

2. To be noted, fourth respondent is a private respondent and learned counsel for writ petitioner has made an endorsement in the case file which reads as follows:

'On instructions the writ petition relief is given up as far as R4.'

3. This endorsement means that writ petitioner is not claiming any relief against fourth respondent.

4. The nucleus of instant Writ Petition is 'land admeasuring 1.05 acres or thereabouts in paimash Nos.74 to 83A part in Vijayaraghava Mudaliyar Chattram Village, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli District' (hereinafter referred to as 'said land' for brevity).

5. Third respondent ie., 'Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation' (hereinafter referred to as 'said Corporation' for brevity) claims that said land belongs to it and that there is a children's park in the same. For this purpose, reliance is placed on 'G.O.Ms.No.1, Education Department dated 2nd January, 1967' (hereinafter referred to as 'said G.O' for brev