O R D E R

The present writ petition has been instituted challenging the order dated 17.09.2007 passed by the first respondent-District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District.

2. The deceased first petitioner states that his father filed OS No.908 of 1929 to declare that he is entitled for declaration of title with respect to the properties mentioned in the plaint Schedule and for the mandatory injunction and to mutate the revenue records.

3. The suit in OS No.908 of 1929 was decreed by judgment dated 17.10.1931. The father of the deceased first petitioner again filed the suit in OS No.595 of 1994 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruvannamalai for an injunction restraining the respondents therein from interfering with deceased first petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The said suit was also decreed on

21.04.1995.

4. Since the respondents failed to mutate the revenue records by inserting the name of the father of the deceased first petitioner, the deceased first petitioner filed WP No.694 of 1996 for a direction to issue patta for the lands situate in TS Nos.1802/1 and 1802/2 measuring 3.75 Acres and 4.77 Acres respectively. The writ petition was allowed on 03.10.2001, directing the respondents to issue patta in the name of the father of the deceased first petitioner. The Writ Appeal No.2797 of 2003 filed by the respondents therein was dismissed by this Court on 17.02.2004. Along with the Civil Court decree and the order passed by the High Court, the deceased first petitioner approached the respondents for issuance of patta. However, the respondents have not acceded to the request of the deceased first petitioner. Thus, the deceased first petitioner again filed WP No.24247 of 2005 for a Mandamus to direct the respondents to issue patta in his favour. The said writ petition was allowed on 28.07.2005. Thereafter, the deceased first petitioner approached the respondents for issuance of patta, but not acted upon, and the deceased first petitioner filed Contempt Petition No.813 of 2007. The respondents took a stand that the Civil Court decree is unenforceable, as the father of the deceased first petitioner failed to execute the decree of declaration. Consequently, the respondents herein passed the impugned order dated 17.09.2007 stating that the subject lands are 'Government Poramboke lands' and 'Water Bodies'. Thus the deceased first petitioner is not entitled for patta.

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners mainly contended that the Civil Court decree of the year 1929 and the decree and judgment dated 17.10.1931 is binding on the respondents. The subsequent orders passed by the High Court in Writ Petitions and Writ Appeals, are also not implemented and the present impugned order has been passed contrary to the dictum of the Civil Court and the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petitions and Writ Appeals.

6. The learned Senior Counsel mainly contended that the Executives cannot be permitted to depart from the dictum of the Civil Court, which crystallised the rights of the parties.

7. In the present case, there is a daring violations being committed by the Executives and thus the order impugned is liable to be set aside.

8. The first respondent-District Collector, being a Quasi Judicial Authority, ought to have conducted an enquiry and considered the case of the deceased first petitioner for grant of patta and to effect changes in the revenue records. Without conducting any such enquiry, the order impugned has been passed and thus it is in violation of the principles of natural justice.

9. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 disputed the contentions raised on behalf of the writ petitioners. The present status of the subject property has been stated through written instructions by letter dated 17.11.2022. In the said letter, the second respondent-Tahsildar, Thiruvannamalai has stated that the lands in TS No.1802/