Judgment :- 1. It is the case of the deponent of the affidavit filed in suppott of the writ petition that his fore father one Rangaswamy Iyengar executed a Trust Deed on 5-121914 in and by which he created a Trust. According to the petitioner, a perusal of the Trust Deed will make it clear that the Trust is a public trust coming within the meaning of S. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There are directions in the Trust deed as to how the trust should be administered and as to bow the amounts should be spent for the temples and also for the Padasalai. The administration of the truit is by the system of turn of trustees. The respondents have taken proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ and have passed a final notification that an extent of about 95 standard acres should be declared as a surplus. It is against this notification dated 24-7-1981, the present writ petition has been filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Vedapatasala Trust, Sooramangalam by Trustee S. Guruswami Iyer and others v. The State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Collector of Thanjavur and others 1 , fot the contention that a trust created for running a Vedapatasala will not come within the purview of the Act. In other words such trust will be exempted from the provisions of the Act. 2. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents wherein it is pointed out that at every stage of the proceedings, the trustees had not cared to file their objections or furnish a copy of the trust deed. It is not necessary for me to narrate here all the steps taken by the respondents before passing the final order. In fact, it is contended by the learned Government Advocate that the deponent of the affidavit himself was aware of the proceedings, but he did not take any care to appear for the inquiry or produce the trust deed. On behalf of the petitioner, it is explained that the trust deed was being administered by turn trustees and therefore for want of continuity in the office there might have been some lapse in not appearing before the Officer. On behalf of the petitioner, it is explained that the trust deed was being administered by turn trustees and therefore for want of continuity in the office there might have been some lapse in not appearing before the Officer. Having regard to the categoric statement in the counter-affidavit of the respondents, I am not inclined to set aside any order at this stage. Therefore, the orders passed by the respondents in respect of the petitioners trust will stand confirmed. 3. However, it is open to the petitioner to file a petition under S 15 or S. 18A to F of the Act, if any one of them is applicable to the petitioner and seek for cancellation or rectification of the final notification. It is not as if the case can be decided in favour of the petitioner merely on the basis of the decision cited above. The objects of the trust and how far there was a direction to conduct a Vedapatasala have to be seen from a perusal of the trust deed. Therefore, if a petition is filed by the petitioner, it will be open to the respondents to examine the same after thoroughly going through the trust deed and see whether any exemption can be granted to the petitioner. If any such petition is filed, the respondents will dispose of the same within three months from the date of such petition. 1 make it clear that it will be open to the respondents to pass orders after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to put forward his case. The writ petition is dismissed with the above observations. The petitioner contends that there has been a stay pending disposal of the writ petition. It will be open to the petitioner to file a stay application along with his petition for review and seek an order of stay and if the respondents are satisfied, it will be open to them to pass appropriate orders. No costs.