ORDER : G.R. SWAMINATHAN, J. The instant writ petition has been filed for directing the Tahsildar, Pattukkottai, to cancel the patta issued in favour of the private respondents in respect of survey Nos.57/1, 57/3, 57/4 at Aripurakarai Village, Pattukottai Taluk, Tanjore District. The writ petitioner had also sought consequential relief of removal of encroachments and for restoration of Valakulam Kanmoi and adjoining water catchment area to its original position. 2. The contesting private respondents have filed their counter affidavits opposing the prayer made in the writ petition. The third respondent viz., the Tahsildar, Pattukottai had submitted a counter affidavit on his behalf and on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. 3. It is seen from the counter affidavit filed by the revenue authority that S.No.57/2 measuring an extent of 2.57 acres has been classified as poramboke Valakulam and S.No.57/1 measuring an extent of 3.96 acres was also originally classified as poramboke kulam in the Register of Rights prior to settlement operation. But, after the introduction of ryotwari settlement, S.No.57/1 was re-classified as government poramboke. S.No.57/2 continued to be shown as Valakulam. During UDR, patta came to be issued in favour of the private parties. The Tahsildar, Pattukottai has stated that as on date, there is no kulam or water catchment area in the survey field. S.No.57/2 is used as a playground. The third respondent has contended that since pattas have been issued in favour of the private parties in respect of S.No.57/1, 57/3 and 57/4, they cannot be considered as encroachments. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. 5. Since S.No.57/2 continues to be classified as valakulam poramboke, it is directed that the authorities shall ensure that the same is not encroached upon. With regard to issuance of patta in respect of S.No.57/1, it must be noted that it originally was classified as Oorani and that therefore patta could not have been issued. All the inam related laws contain provisions forbidding issuance of patta in respect of Ooranis whether public or private. If pattas had been issued in violation of such prohibitory provisions, the same will have to be treated as null and void. Even though this is the settled legal position, we are not in a position to grant any relief in the present writ petition. 6. If pattas had been issued in violation of such prohibitory provisions, the same will have to be treated as null and void. Even though this is the settled legal position, we are not in a position to grant any relief in the present writ petition. 6. As far as S.No.57/1 is concerned, we have to necessarily take note of the fact that the re-classification as well as issuance of patta had taken place several decades back. That apart, in view of the creation of third party rights, there will have to be a fulfledged enquiry, in which evidence can be adduced on both sides. Such a course of action is not possible in the present proceedings instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We therefore, permit the writ petitioner to question the re-classification of S.No.57/1 and seek cancellation of patta issued in favour of private parties in the manner known to law, by moving the appropriate authority concerned. 7. The present writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and grant of liberty to the petitioner as indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.