ORDER : Challenging the order of the District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram District - first respondent herein, allowing the revision filed by the respondents 3 and 4, the petitioner is before this Court. 2. According to the case of the respondents 3 and 4, the land in S.No.448/6 was originally classified as poramboke land and since the third respondent is an Ex-Serviceman, he was assigned of 88 cents of land by an order of assignment dated 31.05.1970. Thereafter, patta has been issued to him by the Tahsildar on 20.01.1992. While so, the petitioner's father - Muniyandi Thevar got his name included as owner of S.No.448/6 stealthily during UDR Survey in the year 1987. The same position was reflected in 'A' Register in the year 1989. On an application by the petitioner, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram, by order dated 25.06.2010 cancelled the patta issued in the name of the third respondent, namely, Narayanan (assignee from the Government) and directed the patta to be issued to the petitioner, namely, Ashok Kumar. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram, had concluded that 'A' Register shows that the property is shown as a private property and therefore, the same could not have been assigned in favour of the third respondent - Narayanan. The Revenue Divisional Officer had also concluded that the assignee cannot have sold the property within 19 years from the date of assignment and therefore, rules of assignment have not been followed. On the said findings, the Revenue Divisional Officer directed issuance of patta in favour of the petitioner. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents 3 and 4 filed a revision before the District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram - first respondent herein. 5. The District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram, after considering the materials, came to the conclusion that the land in question was actually classified as poramboke in the S.L.R and 88 cents out of a total extent of 14.19 acres was assigned in favour of the third respondent on 31.05.1970 and during UDR Survey, the land was sub-divided as S.Nos.448/1, 2A, 2B, upto 448/35. It is also found that in the year 1989, the name of the petitioner's father was incorporated in the 'A' Register which was prepared at that time. 6. On 20.01.1992, the Tahsildar issued patta to the third respondent. Adangal for Fasli year 1394 (1984) stands in the name of Narayanan - the third respondent. It is also found that in the year 1989, the name of the petitioner's father was incorporated in the 'A' Register which was prepared at that time. 6. On 20.01.1992, the Tahsildar issued patta to the third respondent. Adangal for Fasli year 1394 (1984) stands in the name of Narayanan - the third respondent. It is also seen that Narayanan has paid kist for the said lands on 07.03.1978 itself and patta passbook was also issued to him. 7. The petitioner herein, namely, the respondent before the District Revenue Officer was unable to show any prior title except entries in 'A' Register which was prepared in the year 1987 pursuant to the UDR Survey. 8. In the light of the above findings, the District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram, the first respondent herein, set aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram and restored the patta issued to the third respondent and the fourth respondent, who is a purchaser from the third respondent. 9. As rightly pointed out by the District Revenue Officer, the first respondent herein, the petitioner is not able to produce any document except the entries made in 'A' Register in the year 1987. Even prior to that, the assignment has been made by the Government in favour of the third respondent. Therefore, the case of the third respondent that utilising his absence in the village, the petitioner's father stealthily got his name included in the 'A' Register has been accepted by the first respondent. 10. I do not find any reason to differ from the conclusion of the District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram, the first respondent herein, who has considered the entire history of the land in question and has come to the conclusion that that the land in question was originally assigned to the third respondent and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim patta or ownership only on the basis of the entries made in the 'A' Register, that too, in the year 1987, long after assignment made in favour of Narayanan, the third respondent herein. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.