Judgment : 1. The petitioner seeks for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records from the 1st respondent in his proceedings in RPOR No.2/2013 dated 26.4.2013 and quash the same and consequently confirm the 1st respondent's previous order in Tha.va.Ka. 1260/2013 dated 1.4.2013. 2. The issue involved in this writ petition lies in narrow campus. 3. The petitioner's father owned several properties, of which S.No.381 is also one among the property. There is a dispute with regard to the said property. The father of the second respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.648 of 2000 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul and the suit was pending. In the mean time, the petitioner's father died in 2003. Therefore, the petitioner and his brothers were substituted in the suit as parties and the suit was decreed in favour of the second respondent's father. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner and his brother filed an appeal before the Principal Sub Court, Dindigul. In the said Appeal Suit, judgment was delivered stating that the property in S.No.381/2 belongs to the petitioner and property in S.No.381/1 belongs to the second respondent's father and others. Based on the decision of the lower appellate Court, the petitioner and his brothers approached the first respondent for grant of patta in respect of S.No.381/2. On verification, it was found that as against the judgment in A.S.No.9 of 2007, no appeal was preferred before this Court and there was no stay. After verification of the records, the first respondent granted patta to the petitioner in proceedings dated 01.04.2013. Even prior to the issuance of patta, the petitioner's mother is said to have died and the petitioner's brother and sister executed a release deed in favour of the petitioner on 15.05.2013. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application before the first respondent based on the said release deed dated 15.05.2013. At this juncture, the second respondent is said to have filed an application before the first respondent to cancel the order dated 01.04.2013 stating as if a second appeal before the Court is pending as against the judgment in the first appeal. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application before the first respondent based on the said release deed dated 15.05.2013. At this juncture, the second respondent is said to have filed an application before the first respondent to cancel the order dated 01.04.2013 stating as if a second appeal before the Court is pending as against the judgment in the first appeal. Pursuant to the said application, the first respondent, by the impugned proceedings, directed the patta granted in favour of the petitioner should be restored in the name of his father and the matter is held over, till a decision is rendered by this Court in the pending second appeal. This order is impugned in this writ petition. 4. Heard Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.Muruganandham, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Mr.M.R.Sreenivasan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 5. It is stated that second appeal is still in the SR stage and even after four years, the second appeal is yet to be numbered. It is not in dispute that the second appeal has not been filed within a period of limitation and the second appeal is yet to be numbered by the Registry and hence, it cannot be taken that it is a valid appeal filed as against the Appeal Suit. 6. In such circumstances, the first respondent ought not to have set aside the order dated 01.04.2013 and directed the matter to be kept as held over. That apart, the first respondent having passed the said order, is not entitled to review his own decision. If any request is made for correction of the entries on account of three contigencies, which are available under Section 10 of the Act for change of patta, then and then alone, the first respondent would be entitled to exercise his original jurisdiction in this matter. In the instant case, the first respondent invoked his power and set aside his own order passed earlier and directed the matter to be “held over”. The impugned order is ex facie illegal, arbitrary and beyond the jurisdiction of the first respondent. If the second respondent succeeds in the second appeal, thereafter only, any order to be passed by the first respondent would abide by the decree passed by this Court in the second appeal. 7. The impugned order is ex facie illegal, arbitrary and beyond the jurisdiction of the first respondent. If the second respondent succeeds in the second appeal, thereafter only, any order to be passed by the first respondent would abide by the decree passed by this Court in the second appeal. 7. In the light of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the first respondent is set aside and the patta is directed to be restored as per the entries made by the proceedings dated 01.04.2013 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2014 is closed. No costs.