ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging an order passed by the second respondent herein, under which, patta has been granted in favour of the respondents 6 to 8.

2. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the survey numbers in dispute were taken over by the Government under Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963 with effect from 15.04.1965. The petitioners' vendor have approached the settlement Tahsildar II, Trichy for grant of patta and an order was passed in their favour on 30.08.1969, granting patta for survey No.463-2 for an extent of 6.16 acres. The ancestor in title of the respondents 6 to 8 herein had filed C.M.A.No.177 of 1979 before the Inams Abolition Tribunal (V Additional Subordinate Court), Tiruchirapalli. The said appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the settlement Tahsildar.

3. After remand, the settlement Tahsildar has passed an order on

12.02.1982, under which, patta was granted in favour of the ancestor in title of the respondents 6 to 8 herein. This order of the settlement Tahsildar, dated 12.02.1982, was challenged by way of C.M.A.No.12 of 1982 on the file of the Inam Abolition Tribunal, Tiruchirapalli. The said appeal was disposed of with adverse orders as against both the parties. Hence, both the parties were constrained to file S.T.A.No.17 of 1984 and S.T.A.No.43 of 1986 before this Court. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this High Court by an order, dated 18.08.1988, has remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. After remand, the appellant therein, who is the vendor of the writ petitioners had remained absent and hence, the said C.M.A.No.12 of 1982 was dismissed for default on

30.07.2008.

4. The petitioner has chosen to file a suit in O.S.No.164 of 2013 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchirapalli as against the respondents 6 to 8 and prayed for declaration of title, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. The said suit is still pending. 5. The third respondent by his communication, dated 20.08.2013, has recommended to the second respondent for grant of patta in favour of the respondents 6 to 8 herein. Based upon the recommendation, the second respondent has passed the present impugned order, granting patta in favour of the private respondents 6 to 8 herein. This order passed by the second respondent is under challenge in the present writ petition.

6. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the petitioner has already filed a civil suit in O.S.No.164 of 2013 in February 2013. The present private respondents have also entered appearance and they have filed their written statement in March 2015. Thereafter, the present impugned order has been passed by the second respondent herein in October 2015. Hence, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, when a civil suit is pending between the parties with regard to the same survey number, the second respondent ought not to have considered the recommendation of the third respondent and granted patta in favour of the respondents 6 to 8 herein.

7. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the private respondents has contended that once, the C.M.A.No.12 of 1982 was dismissed for default in the year 2008, the respondents 6 to 8 are entitled to get patta, based upon the order, dated 12.02.1982. They have been continuously agitating before various authorities for grant of patta. They have already approached the third respondent herein, seeking patta in the year 2011. Only, thereafter, the present civil suit has been filed by the writ petitioners. Hence, the order impugned in the writ petition shall be sustained, depending upon the result of the civil suit.

8. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side. 9. From the narration of the above said facts, it is clear that the patta granted by the settlement officer has attained finality. However, in view of the various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Full Bench of this High Court, the same c