Judgment :- 1. The Petitioners have filed this writ petition praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandmus by calling for the records of the Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Madras representing State of Tamil Nadu, the first respondent herein relating to his order in proceedings CLA.D.Dis.K.1 R.P. 23/81 dated 18.7.1986 confirming the orders of the Settlement Officer. Thanjavur passed in his proceedings SRI/80 Madras Central Act 30/63 dated 28.2.1981, upholding the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Villupuram in his proceedings SR 1/78 Act 30/63 dated 23)7.1980 granting ground rent patta in respect of T.S. No. 16 Block No. 38 of Puliyur Village, Kodambakkam, Madras under Section 13 (1) of the Act 30/63 in favour of the respondents 5 to 9 and to quash the said order and further to direct the Commissioner of Land Administration, the first respondent herein to dispose of the proceedings regarding the issuance of ground rent patta by giving due opportunity to the petitioners to make their submissions, on merits. 2. This case involves a chequered history, which is given hereunder:— “ (a) Puliyur is a estate village taken over by the Government under Act XXVI/48. The lands in T.S. No. 21/2 of Block No. 39 and T.S. No. 16 of Block No. 38 of Puliyur village were recognised as minor inams. These lands have been notified under the Tamilnadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 30/63, as the Inam and these lands stood transferred to Government and vested in mem under the said Act. (b) The Settlement Thasildar No. III Branch Settlement office, Chengalpattu took up suo motu enquiry and passed orders dated 19.5.1971 granting ground rent patta for T.S. No. 21/2 of Block No. 39 in favour of Salesion Sisters Society of India, Madras and T.S. No. 16 of Block No. 38 to K.M. Ahamadullah Badsha and his family. (c) One K.P. Ganapathy Iyer, the power Agent of V. Appaswamy Pathar objecting to the grant of patta, filed an appeal against the said order before the Tribunal at Madras in I.A.T. No. 1 of 1977. (d) After hearing me oarties, the Tribunal by the order dated 13.12.1977 remanded the matter to Settlement Tahsildar for fresh enquiry and disposal. Accordingly, the Assistant Settlement office, Villupuram conducted enquiry. (d) After hearing me oarties, the Tribunal by the order dated 13.12.1977 remanded the matter to Settlement Tahsildar for fresh enquiry and disposal. Accordingly, the Assistant Settlement office, Villupuram conducted enquiry. (e) During the enquiry, one Venkatachala Pathar as a power of Attorney of Anjammal, wife of Kalyanasundara Pathar filed objection stating that she was alone entitled for patta for the land in T.S. No. 16, as she is the lawful heir of the said Kalyanasundara Pathar. Ganapathi Iyer, the power Agent of Appaswamy Pather objected to the said claim stating that the said Anjammal was not the legal heir. (f) The respondent in the said petition, K.M. Ahmadullah Badsha also filed a written statement claiming that his father Akbar Badsha purchased the said land T.S. No. 16 of Block No. 38 about 41 grounds and other adjoining properties under eight sale deeds between the years 1938 and 1945 and from then onwards, they were in continuous and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the entire lands. (g) After the death of Akbar Badsha, notices under Section 9(2) of the Madras Survey and Boundaries Act 1923 for the lands including T.S. No. 16 of Block No. 38 of Puliyur village were issued to the heirs of Akbar Badsha. (h) In the meantime, the Government of Tamilnadu acquired the lands in T.S. No. 21. Since there were rival claimants to the heirs of Akbar Badsha, the Land Acquisition Proceedings were referred to Civil Court. (i) On conclusion of enquiry, the Court awarded compensation to the heirs of Akbar Badsha. The rival claimants in the Land Acquisition proceedings claiming ownership of the various portions of the lands including T.S. No. 16 of Block No. 38 were prosecuted by the State on various charges for offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code for having used forged documents for claiming the property in question and ultimately, they were sentenced to imprisonment in S.C. No. 39 of 1972. On appeal, the High Court confirming the convictions dismissed the same. On appeal, the High Court confirming the convictions dismissed the same. (j) After enquiry, giving opportunity to the parties concerned, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Villupuram by the order dated 23.7.1980, concluded that the claimants including the petitioners have failed to prove and substantiate their claim for patta T.S. No. 16 of Block No. 38 and further held that the respondents, K.M. Ahamadullah Badsha and his family members have let in convincing evidence to show that they would be entitled to the patta and that they were in possession and enjoyment of me land continuously. Ultimately, he passed an order directing issuance of ground rent patta for T.S. No. 16 of Block No. 38 in favour of K.M. Ahamadullah Badsha and the members of his family. (k) Aggrieved by the above order, one Venkatachala Pathar, the power Agent, on behalf of Anjammal, filed a revision before the Settlement Officer SR II, Thanjavur. After finishing the enquiry, by hearing the parties concerned, the settlement officer by me order dated 28.2.1981 held that the revision petitioners had not established their case for grant of patta for the suit land, while the respondents have made out their case by producing cogent and valid evidence and consequently, dismissed the revision having not found any ground to interfere with the orders passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer. (l) As against this order, Venkatachala Pathar, the power Agent of Anjammal filed second revision in R.P. No. 23 of 1981 before the special commissioner for Land Administration, who in turn, dismissed the same by the order dated 18.7.1986. (m) Strangely, Anjammal and her daughter Jothilakshmi have filed this writ petition challenging the above orders straightaway making their power Agent as fourth respondent herein. (n) During the pendency of the writ petition, the first petitioner Anjammal died and on the memo, the second petitioner Jothilakshmi, the daughter of the first petitioner Anjammal, is representing the proceeding”. 3. Mr. Sundararajan, the learned counsel representing Mr. M.R. Venkataraman, appearing for the petitioners would at length argue that the impunged orders have got to be quashed on the simple ground that all the authorities concerned passed these orders without jurisdiction. The gist of his contentions is as follows:— “ (i) The Assistant Settlement Officer issued patta on 23.7.1980 in favour of K.M. Ahamadullah Badsha and his family members, namely, respondents 5 to 8 by the order dated 23.7.1980. The gist of his contentions is as follows:— “ (i) The Assistant Settlement Officer issued patta on 23.7.1980 in favour of K.M. Ahamadullah Badsha and his family members, namely, respondents 5 to 8 by the order dated 23.7.1980. The said order would suffer from infirmity for violation of Statutory Rules framed under the Madras Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Rules 1965 and as such, the same was passed without jurisdiction. (ii) Furthermore, the procedure contemplated as provided in the Form No. 4 had not been followed while the said finding had been given in favour of the respondents 5 to 8 and the same was ordered in violation of time limit of 6 months period from the date of Notification as per Rule No. 9 and Rule No. 27. (iii) The Assistant Settlement Officer having rejected the photostat copies of the documents filed by the petitioners, wrongly accepted the contents of the photostat copies of the documents marked as Exs. Rl to R12 filed by the respondents 5 to 8 and the same was relied upon in support of his finding. This is clearly prohibited under law. (iv) As against the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, the appeal is provided under Section 11 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXX of 1963) to the Tribunal. Even against that order, the further appeal is provided under Section 30 of the Act to the Special Appellate Tribunal. On the other hand, against the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, the jurisdictions of the Settlement Officer and the Commissioner for Land Reforms were wrongly invoked through revisions. Therefore, the orders of both the Settlement Officer and the Commissioner Land Administration are liable to be quashed, as they were passed without jurisdiction. 4. This submission of the counsel for the petitioners is supported by Mr. Harikrishnan, the counsel for the respondents 3 and 10 to 15 and also by Mr. M. Kalyanasundaram, the counsel for the respondents 16 to 25, who filed W.M.P. No. 19678 of 1997 requesting to implead them as parties in the main writ petition on the ground that they purchased the lands in question by virtue of three sale deeds. 5. However, the above submission has been hotly contested by Mr. K.M. Amjad Nainar, the counsel appearing for the respondents 5 to 8 and Mr. 5. However, the above submission has been hotly contested by Mr. K.M. Amjad Nainar, the counsel appearing for the respondents 5 to 8 and Mr. N.S. Varadachari, the counsel appearing for the nineth respondent, the purchaser of the property from the respondents 5 to 8. The contents of the submissions made by the counsel for the respondents 5 to 9 are as follows:— “(a) Originally, the Settlement Tahsildar took up suo motu proceedings pursuant to the revenue records and passed orders on 19.5.1991 granting ground rent patta for T.S. No. 16 of Block No. 38 in favour of the respondents 5 to 8. The petitioners were nowwhere in the picture then, since they were not recognised owners of the land. (b) As against the said order, one K.P. Ganapathi Iyer claiming to be the power of Attorney agent of one Appaswamy Pathar, the brother of Kalyanasundar Pathar (husband of the first petitioner and father of the second petitioner) alone filed Inam Appeal No. 1 of 1977 before the Tribunal. Even before the Tribunal, the petitioners were not parties. (c) The Tribunal after hearing the parties; by order dated 13.12.1977 remanded the matter to the settlement officer for fresh enquiry. Only during the said enquiry by the Assistant Settlement Officer after remand, the petitioners made a claim through their power of Attorney one Venkatachala Pathar. (d) In the said enquiry, some documents were produced by the petitioners. Those documents were rejected holding that they are not genuine. But the Assistant Settlement Officer directed the grant of patta in favour of the respondents 5 to 8 in respect of T.S. No. 16 of Block No. 38. (e) Against this order, the petitioners only filed appeal before the Settlement Officer in R.P. No. 30 of 1963. After dismissal of the said appeal, the petitioners filed a revision petition before the Commissioner of Land Administration, who, ultimately, rejected the same on 18.7.1986. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned orders have been passed by the authorities having no jurisdiction, as the petitioners only filed the appeal and revision and invited the orders. (f) Moreover, there are several suits are pending before the City Civil Court in O.S. No. 81396 of 1981, 7345 of 1986 and 9105 of 1990 involving the issue relating to the title to the properties in question. (f) Moreover, there are several suits are pending before the City Civil Court in O.S. No. 81396 of 1981, 7345 of 1986 and 9105 of 1990 involving the issue relating to the title to the properties in question. Therefore, the orders passed by the authorities below in favour of the respondents 5 to 8 cannot be questioned by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226, especially when the petitioners have got opportunity to raise the issue before the Civil Court and to establish their claim. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed”. 7. Before dealing with the point for determination as regards the validity of the impugned orders, it would be appropriate to refer to the scope of the jurisdiction under Article 226, especially when the issue is pending before the Civil Court. 8. It is settled law that the Standing orders of the Board of Revenue cannot take away the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to adjudicate upon the question of title relating to immovable property. The Revenue Officers in a patta proceedings may express their views on the question of title, but such expression of opinion is not conclusive. Their views, on the available materials, are only intended to support their decision for granting patta. Ultimately, it is the Civil Court which has to adjudicate the question as to whether the person claiming patta is the title-holder of the land. Even if the Revenue Authorities decide the question of title, that will not in any way affect the jurisdiction of the Civil Court which has to decide the question without reference to the decision of the Revenue Authorities. 9. On a perusal of the various authorities produced by the counsel for the parties, it is clear that in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the question of title regarding immovable property cannot properly be gone into, because the material evidence may be required for adjudicating the question of title. 10. In the instant case, regarding the question of title to the properties in question, already Civil Court has seized of the matter. Under those circumstances, the Civil Court may consider the question of title even without reference to the finding recorded by the first respondent, who confirmed the order of the other Revenue Authorities. 10. In the instant case, regarding the question of title to the properties in question, already Civil Court has seized of the matter. Under those circumstances, the Civil Court may consider the question of title even without reference to the finding recorded by the first respondent, who confirmed the order of the other Revenue Authorities. It shall on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced by them before it decide about the question of title. 11. As correctly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the nineth respondent, the Full Bench of this Court in Srinivasan and 6 others v. Sri Madhayar-juneswaraswami, Pattavaithalai, Thiruchira-palli District ( 1998 (2) L.W. 189 ), would hold that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit for declaration of title and injunction is not barrd by reason of the grant of patta under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 30/63. 12. The said decision quoted the observation of the Apex Court, which is as follows:— “The plea of exclusion of the Civil Courts jurisdiction to adjudicate the title of the parties in the present case is based on the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act (1963). This Court, Court count in a recent decision in R. Manicknaicker v. E. Elumalai naicker ( 1995 (4) SCC 156 =1995-1-L.W. 731), has clearly held that the Civil Courts jurisdiction to adjudicate title of the parties, is not barred by virtue of the provisions of the said Act.” 13. These decisions would clearly show that the findings given by the Revenue Authorities in the matter of granting of patta would not preclude the parties to adduce the evidence in the Civil Court claiming title to the properties and they are entitled to the pattas, as the findings of the Revenue Authorities would not bind the Civil Court, which takes decision irrespective of the findings of the Revenue Authorities on the basis of the materials placed before the Civil Court. 14. It is vehemently argued that all the | authorities have passed impugned orders without jurisdiction and without following the procedure. 15. This submission, in my view, does not deserve acceptance for the reason that the petitioners participated in the enquiry before the Assistant Settlement Officer, who initiated the enquiry as per the order of remand by the Tribunal. 14. It is vehemently argued that all the | authorities have passed impugned orders without jurisdiction and without following the procedure. 15. This submission, in my view, does not deserve acceptance for the reason that the petitioners participated in the enquiry before the Assistant Settlement Officer, who initiated the enquiry as per the order of remand by the Tribunal. They did not object to the procedure followed by the Assistant Settlement Officer then. 16. Similarly, the Settlement Officer was approached only by the petitioners through their power Agent Venkatachala Pathar. After dismissal, they only filed a second revision before the first respondent and invited the detailed orders from him. 17. Once the petitioners acquiesced in the jurisdiction and argued the matter, they cannot be permitted to raise the point of jurisdiction at this stage merely because they failed in their attempts in getting the favourable orders before the authorities concerned. 18. On this point, the learned counsel for the petitioners would take pains by preparing several typed sets containing the extracts of relevant provisions and various decisions. I do not propose to deal with those decisions and provisions on the reason that these issues can be agitated before the Civil Court where, as already indicated, the following suits are pending:— (1) O.S. No. 7345 of 1986 on the file of XV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai filed by legal representatives of Manicka Achary against Anjammal for permanent injunction. (2) O.S. No. 1396 of 1981 on the file of XV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, filed by Anjammal by Venkatachala Pathar against Appaswamy Pathar for permanent injunction. (3) O.S. No. 9105 of 1990 on the file of II Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, filed by legal representatives of Manicka Achary against Venkatachala Pathar for permanent injunction with reference to property T.S. No. 16 Block 38 Puliyur Village, Kodambakkam, Chennai. 19. When a similar issue has been raised before this court earlier, the First Bench of this Court, by its judgment, rendered in Kuppuswami Nainar v. The District Revenue Officer ( 1995 (1) M.L.J. 426 ), dismissed the writ petition and directed the parties to approach Civil Court for deciding the issues in a suit even without reference to the findings recorded by the Revenue Authorities. 20. 20. In the light of the scope under Article 226 of the Constitution, which is so limited, in my view, this decision would squarely be applicable to this case also. 21. In this context, the observation of the Honble Srinivasan, J. (as he then was) made in T.K. Ramanujam Kavirayar v. Sri-La-Sri Sivaprakasa Pandora Sannadhi Avergal (1987 T.L.N.J. 91=1988-2-L.W. 513) is quite relevant, which is as follows:— “If a Civil Court holds that the person to whom patta is granted under the Act is not entitled to the land, the Revenue Authorities have to take note of the same and amend the registers accordingly. It is only the person who succeeds before the Civil Court who will be entitled to get patta from the Government. The various provisions in the Act which are consequential to the grant of patta under the Act, will also apply to such cases. In my view, the ratio of the Supreme Court in AIR 1986 SC 794 =(1985) 98 L.W. 849 (State of Tamil Nadu v. Ramalinga Swamigal Madam will apply to cases arising under the Minor Inams Act. I hold that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide the question of title is not ousted by the provisions of the Minor Inams Act” 22. It shall also be noticed that in the instant case, the petitioners originally appointed some other power Agent. Since he has not acted truthfully, Venkatachala Pathar was appointed as a power of Attorney, who participated in the enquiry before the Assistant Settlement Officer. Then the appeal was filed before the settlement officer and revision before the commissioner, land administration only through the said Venkatachala Pathar, the power of Attorney. But the writ petition has been filed directly by the petitioners making the said power of Attorney as fourth respondent stating that the said Venkatachala Pathar, the fourth respondent herein, has acted against their interest by having wrong forums of jurisdiction. 23. This line of argument making all sorts of allegations as against the power Agents in order to make out a case that they have been wrongly advised, does not merit acceptance. 24. A perusal of the records clearly show that the petitioners have never participated either before the officer who conducted suo motu enquiry or filed any appeal against his order. 24. A perusal of the records clearly show that the petitioners have never participated either before the officer who conducted suo motu enquiry or filed any appeal against his order. Only during the enquiry before the Assistant Settlement Officer Remand by the Tribunal, they claimed their title to the properties in question and requested patta on the basis of some photostat copies of documents. 25. Admittedly, those documents were held to be forged, by the sessions court in S.C. No. 39 of 1972 and also through the finding given by the Honble Pratap Singh, J. in C.S. No. 144 of 1981 dated 12.10.1993. 26. Under those circumstances, I am not able to see any reason to take a view that the opinion expressed by the Revenue Authorities in the impugned orders is wrong. Consequently, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. 27. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. As indicated earlier, the parties in the writ petition can agitate their respective nghts in the civil suits pending before the Civil Courts. No costs. Consequently W.M.P.No 9755 of 1988 is also dismissed.