Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has stated that his father Vedaiya Thevar had died, on 4. 96, leaving behind the petitioner and his mother, Rukmani Ammal, as his only legal heirs. The petitioners father was employed as a teacher. He had executed a Will, dated 22. 96, bequeathing the land and the building comprised in S.No.181/4A, admeasuring 03 cents situated in Hospital Road lane, Tiruthuraipoondi Town, Tirvarur District, in favour of the petitioner. During his life time the petitioners father had an illegitimate intimacy with the fourth respondent Kiliammal, who was also a teacher. The petitioners father had also owned the land bearing No.6-A, Munsif Court Lane, Tiruthuraipoondi Town, which he had purchased by a registered sale deed, dated 30.78. The fourth respondent had illegally influenced the officials of the Tiruthuraipoondi Town and she had got the said property registered in her name. Therefore, the petitioner had filed a suit in O.S.No.280 of 1998, before the Subordinate Court at Nagapattinam, for a declaration, declaring the transfer of the property in the name of Kiliammal is invalid in law and for certain other reliefs. The Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, had granted a decree in favour of the petitioner, on 4. 2000. In spite of the said decree, the Tiruthuraipoondi Town Panchayat had transferred the ownership of the property in favour of the fourth respondent. 3. It has been further stated that on 29. 96, the petitioner had applied to the Head Quarters, Deputy Tahsildar, Tiruthuraipoondi, for the issuance of the patta in the name of the petitioner in respect of the said property, which was the subject matter of the civil suit. The petitioners mother, Rukmani Ammal, had also given a `No Objection Letter for issuance of the patta in the name of the petitioner. After due verification the Head Quarters, Deputy Tahsildar, had issued the patta in Document No. 674, in favour of the petitioner, by his proceedings P.T.R.Dis.II.185/96-97, dated 29. 96. Instead of preferring an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mannargudi, who is the appellate authority, the second respondent herein, the fourth respondent had filed a petition before the Tahsildar, Tiruthuraipoondi, stating that the patta issued in favour of the petitioner by the Head quarters, Deputy Tahsildar, is invalid. 96. Instead of preferring an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mannargudi, who is the appellate authority, the second respondent herein, the fourth respondent had filed a petition before the Tahsildar, Tiruthuraipoondi, stating that the patta issued in favour of the petitioner by the Head quarters, Deputy Tahsildar, is invalid. The third respondent, Tahsildar, instead of rejecting the said petition and directing the fourth respondent to prefer an appeal before the second respondent, had, erroneously, entertained the petition and passed an order, in his proceedings D.Dis.No.5329/98/B3, dated 18. 98. The third respondent had also erred in holding that the fourth respondent was married to the petitioners father for about 30 years and that the property in question had been purchased jointly by the father of the petitioner and the fourth respondent, Kiliammal. The said finding of the third respondent is contrary to the registered sale deed, dated 30.78. Thus, the third respondent had ordered the transfer of patta in favour of the fourth respondent, with regard to the property in question. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the third respondent, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mannargudi, the second respondent herein. The second respondent, after an elaborate enquiry, had also held that the Tahsildar had no right or authority to cancel the patta issued in favour of the petitioner and he had further held that only an appeal should have been filed by the fourth respondent before the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned. The second respondent had further held that the marriage of the fourth respondent with the petitioners father was not valid in law. Thus, the second respondent had rightly held that Rukmani Ammal and the petitioner were the true and the legitimate heirs to inherit the properties of the deceased Vedaiya Thevar, the father of the petitioner. Accordingly, the second respondent had allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner, in his proceedings Rc.7777/98/B1, dated 14. 99, transferring the patta in favour of the petitioner by setting aside the order passed by the third respondent in Pa.Mu.No.5329/98/B3, dated 18. 98. Further, by a consequential order in Rc.No.8546/98/A3, dated 20.4.99, the second respondent appellate authority had revoked the patta, wrongly granted in favour of the fourth respondent. Aggrieved by the final order passed by the second respondent, on 14. 98. Further, by a consequential order in Rc.No.8546/98/A3, dated 20.4.99, the second respondent appellate authority had revoked the patta, wrongly granted in favour of the fourth respondent. Aggrieved by the final order passed by the second respondent, on 14. 99, the fourth respondent had filed a revision petition before the District Revenue Officer, Tiruvarur, the first respondent herein. 5. In the meantime, the petitioner had filed a comprehensive suit in O.S.No.120 of 1999, before the Sub Court, Nagapattinam, for the reliefs of declaration, recovery of possession and for mesne profits, against the fourth respondent. After the fourth respondent had filed her written statements, the said suit had been transferred to the Sub Court at Tiruvarur, and re-numbered as O.S.No.298 of 2000 and it is still pending on the file of the said Court. While so, the first respondent had taken up the revision petition for enquiry and disposed of the same, by passing a final order, in Rc.No.15887/99/B.1, dated 112. 2000, setting aside the order passed by the second respondent. Aggrieved by the order of the first respondent, dated 112. 2000, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, the factual aspects relating to the matter in dispute has been narrated. It has also been stated that the petitioner had filed a comprehensive suit in O.S.No.120 of 1999, for the reliefs of declaration, recovery of possession and mesne profits, against the fourth respondent, Kiliammal, before the Sub Court, Nagapattinam and the said suit has been transferred to the Sub Court, Tiruvarur, as O.S.No.298 of 2000 and it is still pending on its file. There is no appearance on behalf of the second respondent. 7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the first respondent who is the revisional authority does not have the jurisdiction or power to review the order, dated 14. 1999, passed by the second respondent, granting patta in favour of the petitioner. Further, the first respondent is not empowered by law to decide the title of the property in question or about the marital status of the fourth respondent. Therefore, the findings of the first respondent is contrary to law and the facts of the case. 1999, passed by the second respondent, granting patta in favour of the petitioner. Further, the first respondent is not empowered by law to decide the title of the property in question or about the marital status of the fourth respondent. Therefore, the findings of the first respondent is contrary to law and the facts of the case. The second respondent had only decided the issues relating to the transfer of patta in favour of the petitioner, which would primarily depend upon the possession of the property in question. While the civil suit filed by the petitioner, in O.S.No.120 of 1999, is pending before the Sub Court, Nagapattinam, having been re-numbered as O.S.No.298 of 2000, it is not open to the first respondent to decide the issues relating to the title of the property or with regard to the marital status of the fourth respondent, in relation to the father of the petitioner. The reasons given by the first respondent, for ordering the transfer of the patta in the name of the fourth respondent have no legal basis. In fact, the property in question is in possession of the petitioner and therefore, the order of the second respondent, ordering the transfer of patta in favour of the petitioner is correct and valid. 8. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice if this Court is pleased to set aside the impugned order of the first respondent, made in Rc.No.15887/99/B.1, dated 112. 2000, and issue a direction leaving open the issues, relating to the title of the property in dispute and the issue relating to the marital status of the fourth respondent, in relation to the father of the petitioner, to be decided in the civil Suit in O.S.No.298 of 2000, pending on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruvarur. Further, the issue relating to the grant of patta could also be decided by the appropriate authority, pursuant to the decree that may be passed by the concerned civil Court. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 has no objection for this Court passing such an order. 10. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the first respondent, the impugned order, dated 112. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 has no objection for this Court passing such an order. 10. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the first respondent, the impugned order, dated 112. 2000, passed by the first respondent, is set aside and the issues relating to the title, the marital status of the fourth respondent, the issue of patta in respect of the property in question, are left open to be decided by way of civil proceedings before the appropriate civil Courts. Even the question of granting or issuance of patta would be finally decided by the appropriate authority, in accordance with law, based on the decisions arrived at by the appropriate Civil Courts. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. No costs.