The main legal point established in the judgment is that disputes regarding title to land should be adjudicated by a competent Civil Forum, and the prescribed procedures under the relevant Act and rules should be followed.

M. Venugopal, J,

1. This instant Writ Appeal has been projected by the First Appellant/4th Respondent (Deceased) as against the order dated 20.04.2009 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.17340 of 2008. Subsequent to the death of the First Appellant on 03.08.2010 (during the pendency of the Appeal), his Legal Representatives have been brought on record as Appellants 2 to 5 in the Writ Appeal.

2. The Learned Single Judge, while passing the order dated 20.04.2009 in W.P.No.17340/2008 filed by the Fourth Respondent, has, among other things, observed that, "In this writ petition, this court is not deciding the question of title of the above said property. But it was called upon to examine the legality of the impugned order passed by the first respondent. Therefore, the said decisions are not applicable to the facts of this case. It is trite law the special machinery provided under the relevant Act is only to decide the nature and character of the land for the purpose of assigning patta and if it is a matter relating to adjudication of title, it has no jurisdiction to decide the same and can direct the parties to approach the competent civil forum." Also, the Learned Single Judge while coming to the conclusion has opined that there is a dispute with regard to the title of the lands measuring 7.18 acres in S.F.Nos.547 and 548 at Kalapatti Village, Coimbatore District and held that it can be adjudicated only by a competent Civil Forum and it is open to the Petitioner and the Fourth Respondent to workout their remedies before the competent Civil Forum in accordance with law.

3. It is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellants that the Learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the purpose and import of G.O.Ms.No.385, Revenue Department, dated 17.08.2004 in regard to UDR changes conferring powers only upon the District Revenue Officer to correct any wrong entry in the Revenue Up-Dating Register and the First Respondent, having found that the Fourth Respondent's name has been wrongly entered in the Revenue Records, rightly ordered removal of the Fourth Respondent's name from the Revenue Records in respect of the lands situated in S.F.Nos.547 and 548, measuring an extent of 7 acres and 18 cents. Therefore, the Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that the First Respondent's order is in conformity with G.O.Ms.No.385, Revenue dated 17.08.2004, besides the same being a well-reasoned one.

4. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant urges before this Court that the Learned Single Judge had erred in holding that the First Respondent / District Revenue Officer had decided the title and also committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the First Respondent ought to have directed the parties to seek appropriate relief from the Civil Court in view of the rival claims made by the parties.

5. It is the specific contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellants that the Learned Single Judge had failed to appreciate that the First Respondent /District Revenue Officer, found that the Fourth Respondent's name was wrongly entered in the Revenue Records and without any basis, had ordered the removal of his name from the records and further directed the Tahsildar to conduct a detailed enquiry for effecting transfer of patta.

6. According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellants, the Learned Single Judge had not chosen to fully deal with G.O.Ms.No.385, Revenue Department, dated 17.08.2004, which relates to UDR changes.

7. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that G.O.Ms.No.385, Revenue dated 17.08.2004, inter alia, provides that if the land owners' names have been wrongly included in the Land Development Scheme, the District Revenue Officer has the power to conduct an enquiry and to issue orders and that the Learned Single Judge had ignored the tenor and spirit of G.O.Ms.No.385, Revenue Department, dated 17.08.2004.

8. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants projects a plea that the Learned Single Judge w