Judgment : This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order, dated 25-06-2013, vide proceedings in Ni.Mu.4861/2012(A1) passed by the 2nd respondent and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the 3rd respondent to delete the name of the 4th respondent from the patta in respect of S.Nos.312/2 and 312/3, Keezhamabur Village, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District, so as to restore the same in its original position as in patta Nos.217 & 622. 2. The brief facts, which are necessary to decide the issues involved in this writ petition, are as follows :- 2(a) According to the petitioner-Trust, the land measuring to an extent of 81 ½ cents in S.No.312/2 and the land measuring to an extent of northern 36 cents out of 72 cents in S.No.312/3 belong to them-Trust. Patta No.217 relates to the land in S.No.312/2 and Patta No.622 relates to the land in S.No.312/3. 2(b) Originally, the land in S.No.312/2 and other adjacent properties in Keezhambaur Village, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District, belonged to one Valliammal. On 22.07.1939, she executed three sale deeds, in favour of three persons viz., (i)Ramasamy Nadar, (ii) Vella Pandi Nadar (iii) Gopal Nadar S/o. Seeni Nadar @ Petchi Muthu Nadar, who are brothers. Each purchaser, in other words each of the brothers, purchased 20 ½ cents and thus, they totally purchased 61 ½ cents out of 81 ½ cents in S.No.312/2. But, the patta in respect of the entire extent of 81 ½ cents stood in the name of one of the purchasers, viz., Gopal Nadar and the patta number is 217. The said Gopal Nadar was paying kist ever since from the date of purchase and the adangal in respect of the said land measuring 81 ½ cents also stood in his name. Thus, Gopal Nadar and his family members were in exclusive possession and enjoyment of total extent of the land in Survey No.312/2, for more than 55 years. Subsequently, the son of Gopal Nadar, viz., Junior Gopal Nadar sold 81 ½ cents in S.No.312/2 to the petitioner-Trust under a registered sale deed dated 22.11.1994. The mutation was also effected in favour of the petitioner-Trust in Patta No.217, in respect of Survey No.312/2. Subsequently, the son of Gopal Nadar, viz., Junior Gopal Nadar sold 81 ½ cents in S.No.312/2 to the petitioner-Trust under a registered sale deed dated 22.11.1994. The mutation was also effected in favour of the petitioner-Trust in Patta No.217, in respect of Survey No.312/2. Ever since from the date of purchase, the petitioner-Trust has been paying the kist to the Government and the petitioner-Trust is in possession and enjoyment of the property in S.No.312/2. 2(c) Similarly, the petitioner-Trust purchased the northern 36 cents out of 72 cents in S.No.312/3 under a registered sale deed, dated 18.08.1992, from Kalasamy Nadar S/o. Kandasamy Nadar and Kandasamy Nadar S/o. Ramsamy Nadar @ Chelliah Nadar. Originally, the said land viz., northern 36 cents out of 72 cents in S.No.312/3 belonged to one Gomathi @ Michael Ammal and her husband Gnanamuthu Nadar, from whom the father of Kalasamy Nadar, viz., senior Kandasamy Nadar purchased the said property under a sale deed dated 02.02.1933. Patta No.622 relates to the said land viz., northern 36 cents out of 72 cents in S.No.312/3. 2(d) Thus, the petitioner-Trust is in possession and enjoyment of the land measuring to an extent of 82 ½ cents in S.No.312/2 and northern 36 cents out of 72 cents in S.No.312/3. 2(e) While so, the 4th respondent herein had filed a petition on 18.08.2009 before the 3rd respondent to change the entries in the patta in her name. According to the 4th respondent, she had purchased the land measuring 82 cents in S.No.312/2 from one K.Samuel on 06.09.2009 under Document No.1263/09 and similarly, she had purchased the land measuring 2 acres 83 cents in S.No.312/3 from one Thiraviyam on 22.04.2009 under Document No.531/09. Hence, she filed a petition on 18.08.2009 before the 3rd respondent to change the entries in the patta in her name. The petitioner herein-Trust has filed objections on 18.01.2010 before the 3rd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that without giving any reasonable opportunity and without conducting proper enquiry, the 3rd respondent has passed an order on 02.12.2010 to include the name of the 4th respondent in the pattas relating to the above said two survey numbers. Aggrieved over the order of the 3rd respondent, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent and the same was also dismissed on 21.09.2011. Aggrieved over the order of the 3rd respondent, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent and the same was also dismissed on 21.09.2011. Against the order of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner herein has filed a revision petition before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent set aside the order of the 2nd respondent dated 21.09.2011, and remitted back the appeal for re-enquiry by an order dated 04.06.2012. After re-enquiry, by an order dated 25.06.2013, the 2nd respondent has again dismissed the petitioner's appeal and also ordered to delete the name of the petitioner from the pattas. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit, inter alia, stating that the document dated 22.11.1994 through which the petitioner is stated to have purchased the land measuring 81 ½ cents in S.No.312/2 is nothing but a fraudulent document. Actually, the original owner of the said property viz., Valliammal executed a sale deed in favour of one Veeraraghava Iyer in respect of the land in S.No.312/2, in the year 1950. Subsequently, from the said Veeraraghav Iyer the said property was purchased by several persons and all those subsequent purchasers carried possession along with their purchase. Similarly, with regard to the land in S.No.312/3, it is the case of the 4th respondent that a re-survey was conducted by the Government in the year 1968 and after the same, S.No.312/3 has been changed into S.No.312/1 with the same extent and in other words, the present No.312/3 having an extent of 2 acres 95 cents is not related with the claim of the writ petitioner. Similarly, Old S.No.312/4 has been correlated to new S.No.312/2 having an extent of 81 cents, which has no connection with the Old S.No.312/2 because the old survey number is having an extent of 2 acres 95 cents and not 81 cents. It is the case of the 4th respondent that there is a mistake in identifying the properties by the petitioner with correct survey numbers and location. Under such circumstances, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order of the 2nd respondent, it is for the petitioner to approach the civil Court. Thus, the 4th respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Under such circumstances, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order of the 2nd respondent, it is for the petitioner to approach the civil Court. Thus, the 4th respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. I have carefully heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for respective parties and perused the materials available on record. 5. According to the petitioner, originally the land measuring to an extent of 81 ½ cents in S.No.312/2 was owned by one Valliammal. The said Valliammal sold the property by way of three sale deeds, dated 22.07.1939, in favour of three persons viz., (i) Ramasamy Nadar, (ii) Vella Pandi Nadar (iii) Gopal Nadar S/o. Seeni Nadar @ Petchi Muthu Nadar, who are brothers. Each purchaser, in other words each of the brothers, purchased 20 ½ cents. They totally purchased 61 ½ cents out of 81 ½ cents in S.No.312/2. But, the patta in respect of the entire extent of 81 ½ cents stood in the name of one of the purchasers, viz., Gopal Nadar and the patta number is 217. From the date of purchase, the said Gopal Nadar was paying kist to the Government and the adangal in respect of the said land measuring 81 ½ cents also stood in his name. Thus, Gopal Nadar and his family members were in exclusive possession and enjoyment of total extent of the land in S.No.312/2, for more than 55 years. Subsequently, the son of Gopal Nadar, viz., Junior Gopal Nadar sold 81 ½ cents in S.No.312/2 to the petitioner-Trust under a registered sale deed dated 22.11.1994. The mutation was also effected in favour of the petitioner-Trust in Patta No.217, in respect of Survey No.312/2 and the petitioner-Trust is in possession and enjoyment of the said property for the past 20 years. 6. But, according to the 4th respondent, she has purchased the land in S.No.312/2 from one Samuel in the year 2009 and she traces her title from the year 1950. 6. But, according to the 4th respondent, she has purchased the land in S.No.312/2 from one Samuel in the year 2009 and she traces her title from the year 1950. It is the contention of the 4th respondent that the original owner viz., Valliammal executed a sale deed in favour of one Veeraraghava Iyer in the year 1950 and thereafter, the said property was sold to different persons as follows : Veeraraghava Iyer to Padmanabha Iyer, Padmanabha Iyer to Sankar Kumar Sankar Kumar to R.V. Sankara Narayanan R.V. Sankara Narayanan to Kovil Pitchai Kovil Pitchai to K.Samuel K. Samuel to the 4th respondent herein viz. T.Mariapushpam. According to the 4th respondent, all these subsequent purchases carried possession of the property with them. 7. Similarly, so far as the land in S.No.312/3 is concerned, according to the petitioner-Trust, the Trust has purchased northern 36 cents out of 72 cents in S.No.312/3 under a registered sale deed dated 18.08.1992 from one Kalasamy Nadar, son of Kandasamy Nadar, and Kandaswamy Nadar son of Ramasamy Nadar. The senior Kandasamy Nadar, namely the father of the vendors of the petitioner-Trust, purchased the northern 36 cents out of 72 cents in S.No.312/3 under a sale deed dated 02.02.1933 executed by one Gomathi @ Michael Ammal and her husband Gnanamuthu Nadar. Whereas the 4th respondent traces her title in respect of the land in S.No.312/3 to an extent of 2 acres 82 cents only from the document dated 15.06.1962. Therefore, according to the petitioner-Trust, since the petitioner-Trust traces its title to the properties from the documents earlier to those of the 4th respondent and since the petitioner-Trust has purchased the properties in the year 1992, ie., much earlier to the purchase of the 4th respondent in the year 2009, when the 4th respondent submitted a petition for change of entries in the patta, the 3rd respondent ought to have directed the 4th respondent to approach the civil Court, but, in stead of doing so, the patta has completely been changed in the name of the 4th respondent. 8. It is the main submission of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner-Trust that by deciding the question of title, the 2nd respondent has effected the transfer of patta in the name of the 4th respondent. 8. It is the main submission of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner-Trust that by deciding the question of title, the 2nd respondent has effected the transfer of patta in the name of the 4th respondent. According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the revenue authorities are not empowered to decide the question of title for the purpose of changing the patta, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgments reported in 2011(5) CTC 94 [Vishwas Footwear Compnay Ltd., Vs. The District Collector, Kancheepuram] and 2004(1) CTC 136 [Chokkappan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu]. 9. Whereas according to the learned counsel for the 4th respondent, so far as S.No.312/2 is concerned, the original owner Valliammal sold the property, for the first time, only in the year 1950 to Veeraraghava Iyer and thereafter, the said property was purchased by different persons and finally, the 4th respondent has purchased the same from one Samuel and all the subsequent purchasers carried the possession with them. The document dated 22.11.1994 through which the petitioner is stated to have purchased the land measuring 81 ½ cents in S.No.312/2 is nothing but a fraudulent document. It is further submission of the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent that originally S.No.312 of Keelamabur Village, Ambasamudhram Taluk was having four sub-divisions namely S.No.312/ 1, 2, 3 & 4. When the revenue official conducted re-survey in the year 1968, the survey numbers were rearranged. So far as S.No.312/3 is concerned, the Old S.No.312/3 measuring an extent of 72 cents has been changed to S.No.312/1 with the same extent and the present S.No.312/3 comprises 2 acres 95 cents, which is not related to the claim of the writ petitioner. In this regard, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent invited the attention of this Court to the earlier sale deed dated 16.06.1962 and submitted that in the sale deed, a reference was made with regard to the rectification of the survey numbers by the revenue department. 10. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the 4th respondent that originally S.No.312 of Keelamabur Village, Ambasamudhram Taluk was divided into four sub-devisions viz., S.No.312/1, 312/2, 312/3 & 312/4. S.No.312/3 lies on north west part. S.No.312/2 situates on north east part. 10. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the 4th respondent that originally S.No.312 of Keelamabur Village, Ambasamudhram Taluk was divided into four sub-devisions viz., S.No.312/1, 312/2, 312/3 & 312/4. S.No.312/3 lies on north west part. S.No.312/2 situates on north east part. S.No.312/2 was on south east and No.312/4 is on south west. The northern portion of entire property, owned by railway department, was resurveyed. The details of the survey numbers and the extent of land are as follows :- Old New S.No. Area-acre Patta S.No. Area-acre 312/1 2.65 84 312/4 1.15.0 312/2 2.92 203 312/3 1.15.0 312/3 0.72 35 312/1 0.29.0 312/4 0.82 60 312/2 0.33.0 Therefore, there is a mistake in identifying the properties by the petitioner. In fact, the 2nd respondent, after going through all the records, has correctly come to the conclusion that there is a mistake on the part of the writ petitioner only in identifying the properties. Actually, the 4th respondent alone purchased the properties in S.No.312/2 and 312/3 and accordingly, the entries have been changed in her name in the patta. Therefore, the 2nd respondent has not decided any title dispute. Hence, if the petitioner-Trust is aggrieved by the order of the 2nd respondent, it is for the petitioner/Trust to approach the civil Court. 11. By way of reply, it is the submission of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that re-survey was conducted only in the year 1908 and not in the year 1962. In support of his contention, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has produced the information obtained by him under the Right To Information Act. 12. But, irrespective of the submissions made on either side, the question that has arisen for consideration in this writ petition is_ When the pattas in respect of S.No.312/2 & 312/3 stand in the name of the petitioner from the year 1994, whether the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent, deleting the name of the petitioner and changing the patta in the name of the 4th respondent, is legally sustainable, (or) whether the 2nd respondent ought to have directed the 4th respondent to approach the Civil Court with regard to the change of patta, when she submitted a petition with a request to change the patta in her name from the name of the petitioner? 13. 13. According to the petitioner, they are tracing the title in respect of the land in S.No.312/2 from the sale deed dated 22.07.1939. Similarly, in respect of the land in S.No.312/3, they are tracing their title from the sale deed dated 02.02.1933. Whereas the 4th respondent traces her title to the properties only from the years 1950 & 1962. Under such circumstances, according to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent ought to have directed the 4th respondent to approach the civil Court with regard to the change of patta in her name. 14. It is further contention of the petitioner that by deciding the question of title, the 2nd respondent has passed the impugned order. The 2nd respondent is not competent authority to decide the question of title to change the patta in favour of the 4th respondent. In support of his contention, the learned senior counsel of the petitioner relied upon certain judgments. 15. It is no doubt, that the revenue authorities have no power to decide the question of title to the property. But, a perusal of the materials available on records, this Court finds that originally S.No.312 has been sub-divided into S.No.312/1, 312/2, 312/3 & 312/4. Now, according to the 2nd respondent, in the year 2009, the 4th respondent has purchased the property in respect of S.No.312/2 and S.No.312/3; whatever land purchased by the petitioner-trust is not related to the present S.Nos.312/2 & 312/3. In fact, in the impugned order, the revenue authority has given the details of the old survey numbers, co-relating to the new survey numbers, along with the extend of land, as stated supra. 16. On a careful perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds that the 2nd respondent had only traced the title of the 4th respondent, only to identify the correct survey numbers of the properties and 2nd respondent has not decided any title dispute between the parties. By tracing the title the 2nd respondent had come to the conclusion that the land purchased by the 4th respondent alone comes within the Survey No.312/3 and 312/4. Hence, according to the 2nd respondent, whatever land purchased by the petitioner is not in the present Survey Nos.312/2 & 312/3. By tracing the title the 2nd respondent had come to the conclusion that the land purchased by the 4th respondent alone comes within the Survey No.312/3 and 312/4. Hence, according to the 2nd respondent, whatever land purchased by the petitioner is not in the present Survey Nos.312/2 & 312/3. From a perusal of the impugned order, it could be understood that the 2nd respondent has come to the conclusion that there is a mistake in identifying the properties by the petitioner and thus, the 2nd respondent has ordered to delete the name of the petitioner in the patta and to change the same in the name of the 4th respondent. This Court does not find any discussion by the 2nd respondent with regard to deciding of title dispute in the impugned order. When that being so, if the petitioner-Trust is aggrieved by the impugned order, it is for the petitioner-Trust to approach the civil Court. 17. In this regard, it is useful to refer section 14 of the Patta Pass Book Act, which reads as follows_ “Bar of suits_ No suit shall lie against the Government or any officer of the Government in respect of a claim to have an entry made in any patta pass book that is maintained under this Act or to have any such entry omitted or amended: Provided that if any person is aggrieved as to any right of which he is in possession, by an entry made in the patta pass book under this Act, he may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right, for a declaration of his rights under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Central Act 47 of 1963); and the entry in the patta pass book shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration.” As per the provisions under Section 14 of the Patta Pass Book Act, if any person is aggrieved by an entry made in the patta pass book as to any right of which he is in possession, he can institute a suit. In the case on hand, according to the petitioner-Trust, the Trust is in possession and enjoyment of the property and if it feels aggrieved by the entries made by the 2nd respondent in the patta, it is for the petitioner-Trust to approach the civil Court. In the case on hand, according to the petitioner-Trust, the Trust is in possession and enjoyment of the property and if it feels aggrieved by the entries made by the 2nd respondent in the patta, it is for the petitioner-Trust to approach the civil Court. Hence, the judgments relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the present facts of the case, since those Judgments deal about the question as to whether the Revenue authorities are empowered to issue patta by deciding the question of title. But, in the instant case, as observed above, the 2nd respondent has not dealt with any title dispute between the parties, on the other hand by tracing the title to the petitioner and the fourth respondent, he has come to the conclusion that the properties purchased by the petitioner do not come within the present Survey Nos.312/2 and 312/3. Hence, as observed above, if the petitioner-Trust is aggrieved by the impugned order, the Trust alone has to approach the Civil Court to get an appropriate relief, since this Court cannot conduct any roving enquiry with regard to the identity of survey numbers in the writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.