Judgment :- 1. The petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.10719 of 2007 is the daughter-in-law of one Tmt.Subbammal and the third respondent is the daughter of one Tmt.Guruvammal. Tmt.Subbammal and Tmt.Guruvammal are the daughters of one Thiru.Shanmugasundara Thevar. The land in Survey No.237 covering an extent of 10 cents, T.N.Pudhukudi Village, Sivagiri Taluk, Tirunelveli District belong to Shanmugasundara Thevar by virtue of the sale deed, dated 15.09.1928. In the year 1959, a partition was entered into between the members of Thiru.Shanmugasundar Thevar by a partition deed, dated 30.03.1959 and the same was registered in the Sub Registrar Office, Puliyangudi. The said document contains 11 Schedule. 2. According to the third respondent, 10 cents in S.No.237 mentioned in the 11th schedule was allotted to the father of the third respondent in the partition deed, who is the husband of Tmt.Guruvammal. According to the third respondent, while 10 cents is a private property, the same was also classified as 'Manthai Poramboke' in revenue records. According to her, while S.No.237 shows that 74 cents as 'Manthai Poramboke', the afore-said land of 10 cents forming part of the 74 cents is wrongly classified as 'Manthai Poramboke'. 3. The third respondent made representations to the first respondent to correct the error in the revenue records by correctly classifying her land as 'grama natham'. The first respondent directed the Assistant Settlement Officer to conduct survey and find out the truthfulness of the complaint made by the third respondent. Accordingly, the Assistant Settlement Officer has conducted survey and submitted a report on 31.05.2005 stating that 10 cents in S.No.237 is a private land and it could not be classified under 'Manthai Poramboke'. 4. The first respondent also sought a report from the second respondent, the Tahsildar. The second respondent, the Tahsildar, after holding enquiry, he has also given a report to the first respondent endorsing the view of the Assistant Settlement Officer. That is, the second respondent also stated in his report that 10 cents in S.No.237, in Puliyangudi, Sivagiri Taluk is a private land. 5. While so, the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.10719 of 2007, gave objections to the first respondent not to grant exclusive patta to the third respondent and sought joint patta for the afore-said 10 cents in S.No.237. The first respondent heard the petitioner as well as the third respondent on the objections made by the petitioner. 5. While so, the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.10719 of 2007, gave objections to the first respondent not to grant exclusive patta to the third respondent and sought joint patta for the afore-said 10 cents in S.No.237. The first respondent heard the petitioner as well as the third respondent on the objections made by the petitioner. After hearing both sides, the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 11.09.2007 holding that 10 cents in S.No.237 is a private land and the third respondent has established the possession of the said land. In these circumstances, he directed the Tahsildar to grant patta in favour of the third respondent. The petitioner has filed the writ petition W.P.(MD).No.10719 of 2007 to quash the afore-said order. 6. When the Government wanted to put up construction for a godown for agriculturists in the 'Manthai Poramboke', the same was objected in a representative capacity by one Muthiah Naicker and he filed a suit in O.S.No.81 of 1980 before the District Munsif, Sankarankovil for a declaration that land comprised in S.No.237 is 'Manthai Poramboke' and also sought for permanent injunction restraining the Collector and the Commissioner of Vasudevanallur Panchayat Union from constructing godown in S.No.237, which is a 'Manthai Poramboke'. The suit was dismissed on 26.02.1986. Thereafter, an appeal was filed in A.S.No.84 of 1986 before the Sub Court, Tenkasi. The appeal was disposed of on 24.02.1990 holding that the construction was made only in 5 cents in 'Manthai Poramboke' and therefore, the villagers could use the rest of the land for grazing purposes. One Thiru.M.Pallayya Naicker filed W.P.(MD).No.527 of 2008 to quash the afore-said order dated 11.09.2007 of the first respondent on the ground that the order of the first respondent is contrary to the order of the Sub Court, Tenkasi in A.S.No.84 of 1986, dated 24.02.1990. 7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the third respondent narrated the afore-said facts and fairly submits that the issue as to the ownership of 10 cents in S.No.237 relating to the 11th Schedule in partition deed, dated 30.03.1959 could be agitated by the writ petitioner (W.P.(MD).No.10719 of 2007) before the competent civil Court and the findings of the first respondent could not come in the way of the decision to be rendered by the Competent Civil Court as to the ownership. 8. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the writ petitioner sought to quash the entire order dated 11.09.2007 of the first respondent, the petitioner confines for quashing of the order as to the grant of patta to the third respondent and not relating to the finding of the first respondent as to the fact that the land in 10 cents in S.No.237 in the 11th Schedule claimed by the third respondent as private land. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the first respondent could be set aside insofar as grant of patta to the third respondent and issue relating to the ownership can be decided before the competent civil Court. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.527 of 2008 reiterated his plea as found in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 10. I have considered the submissions made by both sides. 11. In my view, after hearing both sides, the first respondent came to the prima facie conclusion that the possession of the land was with the third respondent. In any event, as fairly submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the third respondent that if the writ petitioner establishes her title before the competent civil Court, that could give her automatic right over the property concerned and she could have joint patta. 12. In these circumstances, I am of the view that there is no infirmity in the order of the first respondent and the writ petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent civil Court to establish her title and whatever is stated in the impugned order could not come in the way of the decision of the civil Court in the title suit that can be filed by the writ petitioner. The writ petition W.P.(MD).No.10719 of 2007 is disposed of in the above terms. 13. In W.P.(MD).No.527 of 2008, it is true that a suit in O.S.No.81 of 1980 was filed in a representative capacity of one Muthiah Naicker seeking declaration that S.No.237 is 'Manthai Poramboke' and also he sought for permanent injunction restraining the authorities from proceeding with the construction of a Godown. The suit was dismissed on 26.02.1986. 13. In W.P.(MD).No.527 of 2008, it is true that a suit in O.S.No.81 of 1980 was filed in a representative capacity of one Muthiah Naicker seeking declaration that S.No.237 is 'Manthai Poramboke' and also he sought for permanent injunction restraining the authorities from proceeding with the construction of a Godown. The suit was dismissed on 26.02.1986. Against which an appeal was filed in A.S.No.84 of 1986 and the same was also disposed of on 24.02.1990 holding that the construction of godown was only to an extent of 5 cents and therefore, the villagers could have balance land for grazing purposes. In the afore-said suit proceedings, the third and fourth respondent in W.P. (MD).No.527 of 2008 were not parties. Further more, the issue that arose in the suit was not relating to whether 10 cents of private land were also classified as 'Manthai Poramboke'. In any event, it is made clear that the villagers concerned or Muthiah Naicker or any body else can agitate before the competent Court disputing the title of property of 10 cents in S.No.237. In view of the afore-said finding, the villagers concerned are given liberty to approach the competent civil Court to dispute the title of the third and fourth respondent in W.P.(MD).No.527 of 2008, if they are so advised. The writ petition No.527 of 2008 is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.