ORDER :

(Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to order in No.20/Aa l/2011 dated 05.01.2011 passed by 1st respondent based on the Na .Ka.No.A3/1l21/2010-2 dated 09.12.2010 by the 4th respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to remove the encumbrance entry No.1 of 2011 dated 24.01.2011 in respect of property belongs to petitioner's S.No.462/2B2A to an extent of 022.5 hectare i.e., 56 cents in Devipattinam Village, Ramanathapuram-District.)

This instant Writ Petition has been filed seeking for a Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order dated 05.01.2011 passed by the 1st respondent on the basis of the order dated 09.12.2010 made by the 4th respondent and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to remove the encumbrance entry No.1 of 2011 dated 24.11.2011 in respect of the property in S.N.462/2B2 to an extent of 22 .5 hectares of Devipatinam Village, Ramanathapuram District.

2. Heard Mr.D.Balamurugapandi, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Mr.M.Ramesh, learned counsel Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 2 and Mrs.Farjana Ghoushia, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for 3rd respondent and Mr.S.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent.

3. Mr.D.Balamurugapandi, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the land in S.No.462/282 to an extent of 56 Cents belongs to him. He had purchased the same under registered document number bearing Doc.No.1494 of 2009 dated 15.07.2009 on the file of the office of the Sub-Registrar-II, Ramanathapuram. While that being so, the 4th respondent herein by his proceedings dated 09.12.2010 addressed to the 2nd respondent herein had indicated that various properties belonged to Arulmighu Thilakeeshwarar Temple, Devipatnam Village, under its control, and had requested the 2nd respondent not to register any documents in the list of properties given. The said communication has also been marked to the 2nd respondent. Under item 34, the property in S.No.462/2 measuring an extent of 2 acres and 52 cents had been included. Based upon which the 1st respondent had issued a communication to the 2nd respondent.

4. Based upon which the 2nd respondent had issued a proceedings dated 05.01.2011 calling upon the 2nd respondent not to entertain any documents in respect of properties given by the 4th respondent in its communication dated 09.12.2010. He would submit that the land in S.No.462/2 had been sub-divided into various sub-divisions and that patta has also been issued in favour of the petitioner in respect of the S.No.462/2B2A by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings dated 21.09.2010. Therefore, he would submit that the claim of the 4th respondent to be the owner of the entire property in S.No.462/2 is without any basis and also the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent is wholly arbitrary. The further reason that he would make is that before passing of such order, the 1st respondent had not issued any notice to the interested persons including the petitioner. On that ground also he would submit that the order impugned in these Writ Petition will have to be set aside.

5. Countering his arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent would contend that the property in S.No. 462/2 belongs to Sri Arulmighu Thilakeeshwarar Temple of Devipattinam Village. Even prior to the settlement the property belonged to the temple and the Revenue Records reflects the same. Hence, the alleged Sale Deed based upon which the petitioner claims to have title will not bind the 4th respondent. He would further submit that a joint patta had been issued including the name of the Arulmighu Th