JUDGMENT M. VENUGOPAL, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ of mandamus praying for passing of an order by this Court directing the respondents to consider his representation dated 29.09.2008 and mutate the revenue records of the land bearing S. No. 97 of 3 with an extent of 4.34 acres situate in Ponmeni Village, Madurai South Taluk (Now, West Taluk, Madurai District), by removing the name of Ramanathapuram Estate and substitute and record the name of Arulmigu Thirumeninatha Swamy Thirukovil, Thiruchuzhi, Ramanathapuram Samasthanam Devasthanam within a time frame as determined by this Court. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the subject land bearing S. No. 97 of 3 measuring an extent of 4.34 acres situate in the village of Ponmeni Village, Madurai South Taluk (presently Madurai West Taluk, Madurai District) was dedicated to Arulmigu Thirumeninatha Swamy Thirukovil, Thiruchuzhi. Since the property was dedicated to the temple and deity namely Arulmigu Thirumeninatha Swamy, income derived from the property is dedicated to the temple. 3. It is represented on behalf of the petitioner before this Court that philanthropists viz. erstwhile holders of Ramanathapuram Estate dedicated the property for religious purposes even several decades ago. Till date, the property stands in the name of Ramanathapuram Estate and they constructed and established more than 45 temples and in fact, dedicated their properties for the temples. Likewise, they have constituted 11 kattalais in various temples and they dedicated their personal properties. In deed, all the 45 temples and 11 kattalais are administered under one roof namely Ramanathapuram Samasthanam Devasthanam even from the year 1605. 4. The petitioner/Devasthanam leased out the property in favour of Nataraja Pillai Memorial School for rent. The said school is enjoying the same on payment of Rent. The Lease amount is being credited to the petitioner Devasthanam, which is represented through its Diwan and Administrative Secretary, who had entered into a lease deed. 5. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the subject property was wrongly entered in the revenue records as Ramanathapuram Estate. As stated supra, the lands are dedicated and belong to Arulmigu Thirumeninatha Swamy Thirukovil, Thiruchuzhi, the said temple and the properties dedicated to it do come under the control and administration of petitioner Devasthanam. As such, the petitioner Devasthanam made a representation on 29.09.2008 to the respondents to mutate the revenue records. As stated supra, the lands are dedicated and belong to Arulmigu Thirumeninatha Swamy Thirukovil, Thiruchuzhi, the said temple and the properties dedicated to it do come under the control and administration of petitioner Devasthanam. As such, the petitioner Devasthanam made a representation on 29.09.2008 to the respondents to mutate the revenue records. Also the petitioner made representations on 07.05.2009, 01.04.2010, 15.02.2011 and 25.08.2014 reminding the earlier representations. 6. Added further, the fourth respondent Tahsildhar, Madurai West Taluk, Madurai District caused the notice dated 23.02.2011 to the petitioner to appear for an Enquiry. The petitioner appeared before the third respondent and produced/presented all their required relevant documents. Subsequently, till this date, there is no whisper on the side of the respondents. As such, the petitioner has been perforced to file the present writ petition. 7. At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4. 8. In view of the fact that the request of the petitioner in the present writ petition is only limited in nature namely for issuance of direction by this Court to the respondents to consider his representation dated 29.09.2008 etc. this Court, on the basis of Equity, Fair Play and Good Conscience and even as a matter of Prudence, directs the fourth respondent Tahsildhar, Madurai West Taluk, Madurai District to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 29.09.2008 in a fair, just and dispassionate manner, after providing (adequate opportunities to the petitioner and others concerned by adhering to the principles of natural justice), within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the fourth respondent is to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 29.09.2008 on merits and further in the manner known to law and in accordance with law and uninfluenced with any of the observations made by this Court in the present writ petition. 9. With the aforesaid directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.