ORDER :

Heard both sides.

2. The writ petitioner is a practising lawyer. His father Thiru.Chandra and his grandmother Kanagavalli purchased the petition-mentioned properties vide sale deeds dated 21.02.1963 and 27.07.1963. The sale deed dated 27.07.1963 was executed by one Balagurumoorthi. The said Balagurumoorthi in turn had purchased the property from one Sambasiva Kothanar vide registered sale deed dated 21.10.1960. Sambasiva Kothanar in turn had purchased the property from Kumbakonam Bank. Vide sale deed dated 22.09.1955, Kumbakonam Bank had purchased the property pursuant to the Court auction sale in O.S.No.25 of 1952 on the file of the Sub Court, Kumbakonam. It is not in dispute that the property formed part of inam estate (Tanjore palace property known as Pudu Diwanvada Thottam). The entire inam village came to vest in the Government on 27.08.1982 following the notification issued under the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963. The petitioner's father and grandmother applied for issuance of settlement patta under Sections 10 and 15 of the Tamil Act 26 of 1963. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Thanjavur vide order dated 07.02.1983 granted settlement patta in respect of survey Nos.74/1, 74/2, 74/3 and 74/6. The very same authority conducted suo motu enquiry and held that survey No.74/7 happens to be a temple and survey No.74/14 happens to be a water body and declined to issue settlement patta in respect of those two survey numbers. But what was denied for survey Nos.74/7 and 74/14 in 1983 came to be granted by the succeeding Assistant Settlement Officer, Thanjavur vide proceedings dated 31.08.1988 in favour of one Krishnan and his brother Kaliyamoorthi.

3. These proceedings became the subject matter of suo motu action taken by the Commissioner of Land Administration in the year 2016. Notices were issued to the petitioner and vide order dated 21.12.2016, the settlement patta granted in respect of survey Nos. 74/1, 74/2, 74/3 and 74/6 were set aside. The Commissioner of Land Administration proceeded on the footing that all the survey numbers are actually water bodies known as “Chandra Pushkarani Kulam”. Challenging the said order, these writ petitions came to be filed.

4. The Hon'ble First Bench which entertained the writ petition was pleased to grant an interim order of stay. Counter affidavits have been filed and we heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Advocate General for the State as well as the learned Standing counsel for Arulmighu Someswaraswamy temple which asserts rights over the water body(Chandra Pushkarani Kulam).

5. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions and contended that the impugned orders are without jurisdiction. He also added that on the date of vesting of the Inam village by virtue of the notification issued under Section 3 of the Act, survey numbers in question were not classified as water bodies in the revenue record.

6. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General as well as the learned Standing counsel for the temple submitted that in view of Section 11A of the Act, grant of patta was rightly cancelled by the Commissioner of Land Administration and interference with the impugned order is not called for.

7. We carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record.

8. Suo motu power has been conferred on the Commissioner of Land Administration(formerly the Board of Revenue) under Section 7(c) of the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963. Section 7(c) of the Act reads as follows:-

“ 7. Powers of control of the Board of Revenue-

The Board of Revenue shall have the power-

(a) ...

(b) ...

(c) to cancel or revise any of the orders, acts or proceedings of the Director or of any District Collector, including those passed, done or taken in the exercise of revisional powers.”

The Board of Revenue was abolished in the year 1980 and by virtue of Tamil Nadu Act 36 of 1980, any refer