ORDER : Heard Mr. M. Ramalingam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Thangapandi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. The Writ Petition challenges the proceedings in R.Dis.(K1) 34/90, dated 09.06.2003, passed by the first respondent, viz., the Special Commissioner & Commissioner for Land Administration. 3. In the impugned order, the first respondent has referred to the earlier round of litigation, which culminated in the order dated 12.04.1990 in W.P.No.6626 of 1981 passed by this Court, remitting the case to the first respondent for disposal with the following observations:- "4. ...... 'The only argument that was made before the Board was whether the land in question is a "Pond" or "Oorani". The manner in which the argument was addressed before the Board does not give any scope for the petitioner to make any other submission in this Court. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, urges the following two points. a. Patta cannot be cancelled in respect of the entire extent of 5 acres and 11 cents in S.No.333/3 because there is no finding that the oorani or pond extend over the said entire extent. b. There is no finding as directed by this Court that even if the lands are oorani on ground the parties will be entitled to patta under Section 11 as an improvement to the ryoti lands and such a claim can also be put forward by the parties under the remand to order and the Board should consider such a claim as well.' As already stated neither of these two grounds have been urged before the Board of Revenue by the petitioner. However since, the matter relates to the proprietary rights of the petitioner for the grant of patta which was originally granted to his father and subsequently cancelled by virtue of Act-49/74, and admittedly, the Board of Revenue has not adverted to these two points urged before me, I am inclined to give an opportunity to the petitioner to raise these points before the Board of Revenue. In these circumstances, I set aside the impugned order dated 25.07.1981 passed by the Board of Revenue and remand the case for fresh disposal by the authority which is now constituted as equivalent to the Board of Revenue in respect of these matters. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed." 4. The concluding portion of the impugned order reads as follows:- "10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed." 4. The concluding portion of the impugned order reads as follows:- "10. The entries in the Adangal shows that S.No.333/3 has Oorani, Velikkaruvai trees and a well. The provisions in the amended Act provides for treating the 'Oorani' in a patta land alone as poramboke land. So, the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Kovilpatti treating the 'Oorani' as poramboke, is right and has to be confirmed. The entries in the Village Accounts and the statements of the Village Officials during enquiry and the report of Tahsildar, clearly shows that the entire extent of S.No.333/3 is not 'Oorani' on ground. Hence, it is necessary to measure the exact extent occupied by the 'Oorani' and sub-divide that portion and treat it as poramboke. Patta may be granted to the petitioner for the remaining extent. With this direction, the case is remanded to the Assistant Settlement Officer (South). The Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly." 5. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the first respondent has re-examined the matter in the light of the aforesaid directions issued by this Court and has rightly arrived at the conclusion that it is necessary to measure the exact extent occupied by 'Oorani' and sub-divide that portion and treat it as poramboke and grant patta to the petitioner for the remaining extent. For that purpose, the case had been remanded to the Assistant Settlement Officer, (South) and as such, this Court finds no infirmity or error in the impugned order calling for interference in exercise of power of Judicial Review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. In these circumstances, the order passed by the first respondent, dated 09.06.2003 is affirmed and the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.