Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. The writ petition was preferred by the petitioners against proceedings No.Ni.Mu.Ce.Ma.Kail/9/2000 dated 28th January, 2003, passed by the Special Commissioner for Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. By the said order, the revision application, as was preferred by respondents 6 and 7 against the order of the Land Surveyor, Land Commissioner and Director, was allowed. Giving reference to A Register prepared after re-survey, it was held that Survey No.172/2 is not included in the District Gazette as Panjamer Tharisu. The land was declared to be Tharisu land. 2. Challenging the aforesaid order on the ground of illegality, the petitioner took a plea that the land in question is Panjamer Tharisu, which has been shown in A Register situated in Survey No.239/2 (172/2A) to an extent of 0.62 Hectares and S.No.239/7 to an extent 0.690 Hectares of Vengikal Village, Tiruvannamalai District. After detailed arguments and discussion, it was accepted that this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot appreciate evidence to find out the nature of the land or title if any or possession. 3. In the case of Kuppuswami Nainar Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Thiruvannamalai and others reported in 1995(1) MLJ Page 426, a Bench of this Court held that the Revenue Authorities expressing opinion for deciding about right to property is mere opinion and such decision is not conclusive. The Civil Court is not barred from adjudicating the question of title relating to immovable property. 4. In the facts and circumstances, instead of deciding the disputed question of nature of the land or title if any or possession, we give liberty to the aggrieved person to move before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for appropriate relief, if otherwise permissible. We only make it clear that any opinion given by the Revenue Authorities with regard to right or title or nature of the land or possession cannot be treated to be conclusive and the Competent Court will decide it independently on the basis of evidence and merit without being influenced by such order. 5. The writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observation. However there shall be no order as to costs.