Judgment :- There is a long history behind this Writ Petition and it is necessary to notice all the events. The Writ Petition concerns only an extent of 3.24 acres in Survey No. 9/1, and 23.42 acres in survey No. 23/2 in zamin Lachivakkam village, Pennalurpet Sub Taluk, Uthukottai Taluk, Chengalpattu District. The said lands and certain other lands were the subject matter of an Ijara Cowle granted by the Rajah of Kalahasthi in the year 1858 to and in favour of Lingadi Muni Reddi being the paternal ancestor of the f irst three petitioners. The land comprised in the Cowle is called ‘Cheravu Thotti Kandrigai”. The entire village was purchased by the Thirumalai Thirupathi Devasthanam in or about 1912. The land was surveyed under the provisions of Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923. The above lands and certain other lands were classified as communal poramboke by the Survey Officer. Against the order of the Survey Officer an appeal was filed to the Assistant Director of Survey, who confirmed the order of the Survey Officer. The predecessors of the petitioners filed a statutory suit O.S. No. 12 of 1940 to set aside the order of the Survey Officer dated 21.5.1927. The judgment in this case is an important document, to which I will make a reference at a later stage. For the purpose of completion of the facts it is to be stated that the court held in the said Judgment that survey Nos. 23/2 and 9/1 are not poramboke lands set apart for the village community, but they are unassessed waste land which were in the exclusive possession of the plaintiffs and their ancestors. The importance of this Judgment relates only to the finding that the said lands are not poramboke lands. It seems that the landholder namely, Thirumalai Thirupathi Devasthanam preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 40 of 1942 against the said judgment, but the appeal was subsequently dismissed as not pressed. According to the petitioners, the landholder had carried out the findings of the civil court in the revenue records as seen from the extract of the survey land Register. 2. The second part of the history commences from the notification issued under the Tamil Nadu Estates Abolition Act 26 of 1948, taking over the Lachivakkam Zamin Estate on 7.9.1952. The petitioners sought for the grant of ryotwari patta in respect of survey Nos. 2. The second part of the history commences from the notification issued under the Tamil Nadu Estates Abolition Act 26 of 1948, taking over the Lachivakkam Zamin Estate on 7.9.1952. The petitioners sought for the grant of ryotwari patta in respect of survey Nos. 9/1 and 23/2 before the Director of Settlements who in turn directed the Settlement Officer to enquire into the matter. Apparently there were certain other claims also in respect of the very same survey numbers. By an order dated 27.2.1974 the Ass istant Settlement Officer rejected the claim of the petitioners on the ground that the lands were not pre-1933 ryoti lands and he held that the lands were “Pond Poramboke” respectively. A Revision petition was preferred before the Settlement Officer in R.P. 15 of 1975. The other claimants also filed Revision Petition in R.P. 16 of 1975. Both the revision petitions were taken together by the Settlement Officer and by his order dated 17.1.1976 held that the lands were ryoti lands and not poramboke as held by the Assistant Settlement Officer. He however remanded the matter back to the Assistant Settlement Officer for enquiring into the rival claims of the contesting claimants. This order of the Settlement Officer is another important piece of document to be kept in mind while disposing of the writ petition. Against the order of the Settlement Officer the other claimants preferred a revision to the Director of Settlements who dismissed the revision on 3.9.1976. Even further revision by the counter claimants to the Board of Revenue ended in dismissal on 26.2.1977. However in the remanded enquiry, the Assistant Settlement Officer by his order dated 19.2.1978 held the lands were registered as Poramboke in the Settlement Account and both the rival claimants were not entitled to patta. The first petitioner preferred a revision to the Settlement Officer. The rival claimants also preferred a revision. By his order dated 16.4.1979 the Settlement Officer found that the nature of the lands had already been decided by the Sub Court, Chengalpattu in O.S. No. 12 of 1940 and the Assistant Settlement Officer was directed only to decide the dispute between the rival claimants. The rival claimants also preferred a revision. By his order dated 16.4.1979 the Settlement Officer found that the nature of the lands had already been decided by the Sub Court, Chengalpattu in O.S. No. 12 of 1940 and the Assistant Settlement Officer was directed only to decide the dispute between the rival claimants. On this last mentioned question the Settlement Officer referred to certain other civil proceedings which were pending in the High Court, Madras and directed the parties to abide by the decision of the High Court, and also directed to continue the lands to be treated as poramboke will the civil court decided the issue. Against this order both the petitioners and the rival claimants filed revision petition before the Director of Settlements. The Director by his order dated 28.11.1979 held that the lands were non-ryoti in character and dismissed the revision petition. When the matter was taken to the Board of Revenue it was held that the successful party in the Second Appeal pending in the High Court, should move the Revenue Authorities for the implementation of the order of the Civil court. 3. The third part of the history relates to the civil proceedings. In August, 1973 the alleged rival claimants attempted to trespass into a portion of the property said to be in the enjoyment of the petitioners. The petitioners therefore filed O.S. No. 647 of 1983 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruvallur, for an injunction to protect their possession. The suit was dismissed by judgment dated 20-12-1974. On appeal, the petitioners were successful. The suit was converted into one of title and the appellate judge granted a declaration in favour of the petitioners and also upheld the possession of the petitioners. It is against the said judgment that the Second Appeal No. 437 of 1978 was filed in the High Court, Madras. The Second Appeal was decided on 14.10.1981 and the operative portion of the Judgment is as follows: “I have perused the order of the Board myself. I am unable to subscribe to the view that the Board has, in specific terms, reversed the finding of the Director of Survey and Settlements who held that the lands do not fall within the character of ryot but would constitute poramboke. I am unable to subscribe to the view that the Board has, in specific terms, reversed the finding of the Director of Survey and Settlements who held that the lands do not fall within the character of ryot but would constitute poramboke. Therefore, unless and until the character of the lands is finally determined, it would not be open to the parties herein to get patta. For this purpose an adjudication by the concerned Settlement authorities will be essential.” 4. In pursuance of the said direction of the High Court, Madras, the petitioners seem to have moved the Commissioner of Land Administration to declare the character of the lands in Survey Nos. 9/1, and 22/3, as ryoti lands and to direct issue of patta to the petitioners. By proceedings dated 12.1.1984, the Commissioner of Land Administration held that the lands were non-ryoti in character. It is this order of the Commissioner which is challenged in this writ petition. 5. It appears to me that the petitioners should have approached the initial authority, namely, the Assistant Settlement Officer to decide the character of the land as directed by this Court in S.A. No. 437 of 1978. It is the initial authority where the lands are situated, who can collect the basic data to ascertain the character of the land. The higher or Appellate authorities normally proceed on the basis of the records. It is this mistake which has landed the petitioners in an unenviable position, in which they are placed now. The unenviable position is that there is an order of the Settlement Officer dated 17.1.1976 holding that the lands were ryoti in character. His direction to remand the case to the Assistant Settlement Officer was only to enquire into the rival claimants of the petitioners and others. All the subsequent proceedings should have related only to this direction of the Settlement Officer. But unfortunately the Assistant Settlement Officer in his remanded enquiry and order dated 19.2.1978 went beyond the said direction and held that the lands were registered as poramboke lands. In his subsequent order the Settlement Officer points out the mistake, but does not correct the error, because by that time, the civil proceedings were pending in the High Court, in Second Appeal No. 437 of 1978. In the subsequent orders of the Director of Settlement and the Board of Revenue this aspect of the case had been ignored. In his subsequent order the Settlement Officer points out the mistake, but does not correct the error, because by that time, the civil proceedings were pending in the High Court, in Second Appeal No. 437 of 1978. In the subsequent orders of the Director of Settlement and the Board of Revenue this aspect of the case had been ignored. In the judgment of the High Court dated 14.10.1981 in S.A. No. 437 of 1978 the petitioners were handed down an adverse observation and direction which are binding on them. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as follows: “Therefore, unless and until the character of the lands is finally determined, it would not be open to the parties herein to get patta. For this purpose an adjudication by the concerned Settlement Authorities will be essential. As and when such an adjudication comes to take place, it shall be open to them to revise the judgment of this Court on the evidence let in before them. This is because what they decided is only the character of the lands and not as to who has title.” The Second Appeal was dismissed in the above terms. The petitioners did not challenge the said decision in the second Appeal. 6. The attempt of Mr. T.R. Mani, learned counsel for the petitioners is to cite decisions on the question when a finding of an authority had become final it would not be legally possible to challenge such findings in subsequent proceedings. References are made to Krishnaswamy Reddiar v. Muthu Reddiar 1979 I M.L.J. 108 = 92 L.W. 170 S.R. Goel v. S. Dayal 1972 (1) S.C.R. 836 and Vyankatesh v. Krishan A.I.R. 1931 Bombay 417 I do not think that the petitioners will be profited by invoking the doctrine enunciated in those decisions. This is because the petitioners face similar situation while countenancing the judgment of the High Court in S.A. No. 437 of 1978. The direction of the High Court has become final and it will be idle to contend that the character of the lands cannot be gone into once again after the decision of the Settlement Officer in his order dated 17.1.1976. The direction of the High Court has become final and it will be idle to contend that the character of the lands cannot be gone into once again after the decision of the Settlement Officer in his order dated 17.1.1976. The position that emerges after clearing oneself from the various orders passed from time to time is that the decision of the High Court in S.A. No. 437 of 1978 has to be obeyed and the character of the lands should once again be determined. Even the Settlement Officer in his second order dated 16.4.1979 had held that the decision of the High Court in Second Appeal has to be awaited and the parties should abide by the declaration of title, made by the High Court. However, the High Court did not declare the title of any person, but directed that the character of the land should be determined. The High Court further directed that after such a determination is made the parties could put forth their respective claims to title. No doubt the parties have been going round and round a vicious circle. 7. I am therefore concerned with the validity of the order dated 2.1.1984 which was brought upon the petitioners by themselves by filing an application seeking for a declaration that the lands namely, Survey Nos. 9/1 and 23/2 Lachivakkam Village are ryoti in character and for the consequent issue of ryotwari patta to them. No doubt it was urged before the Commissioner that the decision of the Settlement officer on 17.1.1976 is binding on the parties. The Commissioner rejected that argument that the lands had been treated as poramboke during the settlement and the petitioner did not get any patta from the land holder in token of their admission into the lands by the holders. He therefore, held that the petitioner did not qualify themselves for the grant of patta under S. 11(a) of the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948. He proceeds to say that the petitioners did not produce any records to show that the lands are ryoti in character and should be included in their holding to entitle them for the grant of patta under S. 11(a) of the Tamilnadu Act 26 of 1948. He refers to the absence of the evidence regarding enjoyment of the lands for agricultural purpose and payment of rent to the land holder. He refers to the absence of the evidence regarding enjoyment of the lands for agricultural purpose and payment of rent to the land holder. He therefore holds that the lands are non-ryoti in character. I am clearly of the opinion that the Commissioner has proceeded on a cursory appraisal of the requirements of law and the non-availability of the evidence. He has not analysed the case by going to the root of the matter. This is precisely the reason why I had earlier pointed out that the petitioners should have approached the initial authority. To go back to the origin of the case, O.S. No. 12 of 1940 was filed for the purpose of setting aside an order of the survey classified as communal poramboke. The Subordinate Judge., Chengalpattu, has rendered a decision on 4.11.1941 which has become final and wherein learned Judge has made in-depth study of the entire case and holds that only Survey Nos. 23/2 and 9/1 are unassessed waste land and cannot be classified as communal poramboke. In doing so the learned Subordinate Judge has held certain other lands as communal poramboke, notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiffs in that case sought for a decision that such other lands were also unassessed waste land. There is no point in just referring to the conclusion of the learned Subordinate Judge but one has to read through the Judgment to appreciate its value. Learned Subordinate Judge has taken each survey number separately, and renders a finding wither they are communal poramboke lands or cultivable lands. It is not necessary for me to refer the judgment entirely. Adverting to Survey No. 9/1 learned Subordinate Judge says that it is a fresh water pond and there are fruit bearing trees around the pond. There was evidence to show that the plaintiffs had been in enjoyment of such trees. Learned Subordinate Judge concludes that the pond is not a poramboke and that the plaintiffs were entitled to it. Similarly with reference to survey No. 23/2 which was a waterspread area of tank, learned Subordinate Judge has adverted to the oral evidence that the estate had not put forward any claim to the grass grown in the said land. He therefore, finds that the said land is not a poramboke, set apart from the village community. Before the learned Subordinate Judge the primary document was the Ijara Cowle nama dated 19.8.1858. He therefore, finds that the said land is not a poramboke, set apart from the village community. Before the learned Subordinate Judge the primary document was the Ijara Cowle nama dated 19.8.1858. Further survey plans, Adangal accounts, Field measurement books and the oral evidence of as many as 10 witnesses were before him. The village officers had also been examined. Learned counsel for the petitioners rightly points out that on the basis of the said judgment the landholder accepted the said two survey numbers as patta lands in the survey land Register. The only lacuna was that the actual patta was not issued to the petitioners. The Settlement Officer in his order dated 17.1.1976 accepted the said judgment on the question of character of the lands and held that the lands are ryoti in character. Though the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge in O.S. No. 12 of 1940 was rendered in a proceeding under the Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 and may not be binding on the Settlement Officer while deciding the character of the land, the judgment is entitled to considerable weight because the important aspects relating to the character of the land have been decided by the civil court. Unless the Settlement Officers have with them the other evidence which are more compelling to come to the conclusion that the lands are poramboke, it would not normally be proper for the Settlement Authorities to ignore the weighty reasoning given by the civil court. In other words, the Judgment of the civil court is entitled to considerable weight and respect. Unfortunately, none of the officers under the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948 have analysed the evidence in any manner comparable to the manner in which the learned Subordinate Judge has analysed the evidence in O.S. No. 12 of 1940. While the direction of the High Court in S.A. No. 437 of 1978 has to be undoubtedly given effect to, the Settlement Authorities cannot and should not ignore the findings of the Subordinate Judge in O.S. No. 12 of 1940. As I have already pointed out it is open to the Settlement Authorities to take note of other evidence, if available and consider the same along with the evidence discussed by the learned Subordinate Judge and come to the conclusion one way or to the other. As I have already pointed out it is open to the Settlement Authorities to take note of other evidence, if available and consider the same along with the evidence discussed by the learned Subordinate Judge and come to the conclusion one way or to the other. But, no such exercise has been done by any of the Settlement Officers. I have no doubt in my mind, that the impugned order of the Commissioner of Land Administration dated 2.1.1984 is liable to be quashed. As I have already pointed out the Commissioner has not made an in-depth study of the evidence which is available as seen from the judgment of the civil court in O.S. 12 of 1940. A mere reference to the requirement of law cannot decide the fate of the parties. The impugned order is therefore quashed. The matter will be remitted back to the respondents. I make clear that the respondent will be at liberty to remit the matter back to the initial authority namely, the Assistant Settlement Officer for considering the case in all its aspects and by making reference to all the evidence available in the case. In this connection I must also refer to the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the rival claimants have now withdrawn from the scene. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. However, there will be no order as to costs.