JUDGMENT : K.RAVICHANDRABAABU, J This writ appeal is directed against the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.5227 of 2012, dated 18.04.2012. The appellant is the writ petitioner. He challenged the order of the first respondent Tahsildar, dated 19.03.2012 rejecting the request of the writ petitioner for grant of separate patta and mutation of revenue records. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the first respondent Tahsildar is not a competent person to decide the title over the subject matter property, as has been done in this case. He further submitted that the appellant is having valid title to the subject matter property and even assuming that his purchase is hit by certain provisions of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, in the absence of any challenge made by the official receiver against such sale within the time stipulated under the relevant provisions of the said Act, the purchase made by the petitioner, of the subject matter property, cannot be disturbed. Therefore, he contended that the first respondent Tahsildar, is not justified in rejecting the request for mutation of revenue records and grant of separate patta to the appellant. 3. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsels appearing for the respondents that the subject matter property was already vested with the official receiver in pursuant to an order of adjudication made under the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, on the legal heirs of one Rathinasabapathy, as insolvents and therefore, any purchases made in respect of the properties vested with the official receiver, are not valid and consequently, based on such purchase, the appellant is not entitled to claim the relief before the first respondent Tahsildar. 4. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition only on the reason that the appellant/writ petitioner is having a remedy of filing of an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer. 5. Upon hearing the learned counsel on either side and perusing the materials placed before us, more particularly, the discussions made in the impugned order, passed by the first respondent Tahsildar, one thing is evident that title to the property, for which, the appellant seeks for mutation of revenue records and grant of separate patta, is in dispute. 5. Upon hearing the learned counsel on either side and perusing the materials placed before us, more particularly, the discussions made in the impugned order, passed by the first respondent Tahsildar, one thing is evident that title to the property, for which, the appellant seeks for mutation of revenue records and grant of separate patta, is in dispute. According to the appellant, the purchase made by him is valid and on the other hand, it is disputed by the second respondent that such property already vested with him, cannot be sold in favour of the appellant. Needless to say that when such title dispute is raised involving question of facts, it is for the parties to approach the Civil Court and establish their title by filing appropriate Civil Suit. It is also needless to say that revenue officials, in particular, in this case, the first respondent Tahsildar, is not a competent person to decide the title to the property in dispute. If the Tahsildar comes to the conclusion that there is a dispute between the parties with regard to the title, he ought to have directed the parties to agitate the matter before the Civil Court. 6. Therefore, we are of the view that the observations made by the Tahsildar in the impugned order touching upon the title to the property, cannot stand in the way of Civil Court to decide the title dispute, if any suit is filed by any of the parties, as observed supra. We make it very clear that we are not expressing any view on the rival contentions raised by the parties in respect of the title to the property, as we are not called upon to decide the same in the present lis, which arise out of an order passed by the Tahsildar refusing to grant patta alone. Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of by granting liberty to the respective parties to agitate the matter before the Civil Court by filing appropriate Civil Suit. As already stated supra, all the observations made by the first respondent Tahsildar in the impugned order, shall not stand in the way of the Civil Court while deciding the suit, as the Civil Court is expected to decide the same on merits and in accordance with law. As already stated supra, all the observations made by the first respondent Tahsildar in the impugned order, shall not stand in the way of the Civil Court while deciding the suit, as the Civil Court is expected to decide the same on merits and in accordance with law. It is open to the parties, to raise all their contentions before the Civil Court, as and when any suit is filed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.