JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records in connection with the impugned order of the 1st respondent dated 25.04.2011 in Rc.K1/28296/2010 and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to make necessary sub division as per patta issued in favour of the petitioners by the 3rd respondent in his order dated 20.10.2010.) 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the first respondent dated 25.04.2011, in and by which, the first respondent has cancelled the order passed by the third respondent, Assistant Settlement Officer granting Patta measuring an extent of 13.30 cents under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 30/1963') in respect of S.No.281/3 to the petitioners. 2. The brief facts culled out from the above writ petition is as follows: (i) The petitioners' predecessor-in-title are the owners of 14 cents out of 20 cents of land in S.No.281/3 of Vishnu Kanchee village at Kanchipuram District. The title is traceable from the year 1915. According to the petitioners, the land in Town S.Nos.235/10, 11, 12 and 13 measuring an extent of 36 cents in Kanchipuram Town belongs to the petitioners and the land in question in S.No.281/3 measuring an extent of 14 cents adjoining the said land was purchased by the petitioners to make the entire land in one block. (ii) The petitioners have got a rice mill under valid licence and running the same for the past so many years including the drying yard and open space which are all available in the land measuring an extent of 50 Cents. (iii) Originally the property in question was purchased by one Sheshadri and Munusamy Naidu in the year 1915 and thereafter the said Munusamy Naidu purchased the share of Sheshadri under registered Sale Deed dated 17.11.1919, in document No.6070 of 1919 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Kanchipuram. (iv) During the period between 1915 and 1935 the said Munusamy Naidu has plotted out the said lands and sold it to various persons. What was left at the hands of the said Munusamy Naidu is 42 cents in T.S.No.235/1 and 20 cents in S.No.281/3 of Vishnu Kanchee village, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition. (iv) During the period between 1915 and 1935 the said Munusamy Naidu has plotted out the said lands and sold it to various persons. What was left at the hands of the said Munusamy Naidu is 42 cents in T.S.No.235/1 and 20 cents in S.No.281/3 of Vishnu Kanchee village, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition. (v) Thereafter, the property devolved in favour of Govindammal, wife of Munusamy Naidu under a will dated 20.12.1935. The said Govindamma sold the property in favour of one Shanmugam under a registered Sale Deed dated 04.09.1965. (vi) Thereafter, the said Shanmugam sold 4.5 cents each to Annamalai Mudaliar and Subathirai Ammal under two sale deeds on 06.10.1965 and 06.09.1965 respectively. Thereafter, the second petitioner under a registered Sale Deed dated 12.09.1970, purchased from Annamalai Mudaliar an extent of 12 cents in T.S.No.235/1 and 4.55 cents in S.No.281/3 of Vishnu Kanchee village. By another registered Sale Deed dated 15.11.1973, the second petitioner purchased from Subathirai Ammal an extent of 12 cents in T.S.No.235/1 and 4.55 cents in S.No.281/3. (vii) Further, the petitioners by a registered Deed of Exchange dated 22.02.1971 obtained 12 cents in T.S.No.235/1 and 4.2 cents in S.No.281/3 of Vishnu Kanchee village. By another Deed of Sale dated 14.4.1971, the first petitioner Mr.K.Krishnan purchased a part of the exchanged property of S.No.235/1 and 4.2 cents in S.No.281/3 from Shanmugam also. Accordingly, the petitioners have become the owner of 13.3 cents in S.No.281/3 of Vishnu Kanchee village. (viii) The said village was originally an Inam village covered under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act) 1963 (Act 30/1963), while making the survey, under proceedings in S.L.R.P.D/A W/O 10 in S.R.2346/67 M.M.I.A./Act/KPM dated 10.08.1967, the lands in S.No.281/3 measuring an extent of 20 acres owned and in possession of the petitioners were wrongly included with S.No.281/2 which is classified as River Vegavathi in the revenue records. (ix) As a matter of fact, the lands in S.No.281/3 being punja lands and registered under valid patta. Thereupon on the representation of the pattadhars and others, the said error was rectified and declared as punja lands in the survey re-settlement paisalathipathi register of 62 of Vishnu Kanchee village. (x) However, without notice to anyone in the year 1973, by an errata slip, the Assistant Settlement Officer seems to have committed the same error and included the petitioners land in S.No.281/2. (x) However, without notice to anyone in the year 1973, by an errata slip, the Assistant Settlement Officer seems to have committed the same error and included the petitioners land in S.No.281/2. This was done without any enquiry or notice to the petitioners who are the owners of 13.30 cents in S.No.281/3. (xi) It is further stated that there was a civil litigation even before the enforcement of the Act 30/1963 with reference to S.No.281/3, an extent of 20 cents and which was the subject matter of decision in second appeal in S.A.No.98 of 1993, wherein, the possession and title of the petitioners were declared. Therefore, to set right the mistake committed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, a representation has been made to the third respondent. The third respondent by his proceedings dated 15.7.2010, after conducting proper enquiry and inspection of the site and after verifying the records granted Ryotwari Patta in favour of the petitioners under Section 8(1) of Act 30/1963 to an extent of 13.30 cents in S.No.281/3. (xii) Having granted the patta, the third respondent marked a copy to the Tahsildar for making the sub-division. However, the Tahsildar instead of sub-dividing the property, referred the matter to the second respondent District Collector. The second respondent by his letter dated 29.09.2010, sent the proposal to the first respondent just to divert and delay the matter. (xiii) The first respondent without proper appreciation of facts set aside the order of the third respondent granting patta. Hence, the order of the first respondent is assailed on the ground that issuance of patta under Act 30/1963 is in recognition of the pre-existing rights of a land holder as on the date of the Act and the very Act provides for hierarchy of appellate and revisional remedies and no one ever made any claim or questioned the said order. Hence, the order of the first respondent is totally without jurisdiction and the first respondent has got no jurisdiction to decide the issue. The first respondent lacks jurisdiction and the impugned proceedings is in noway traceable to any of the Sections of Act 30/1963. (xiv) It is also stated that even the Civil Court has confirmed the title of the petitioners and the petitioners are in enjoyment and possession and therefore they are entitled to get patta under Act 30/1963. The first respondent lacks jurisdiction and the impugned proceedings is in noway traceable to any of the Sections of Act 30/1963. (xiv) It is also stated that even the Civil Court has confirmed the title of the petitioners and the petitioners are in enjoyment and possession and therefore they are entitled to get patta under Act 30/1963. The right and possession is traceable long prior to the advent of the Act 30/1963. Hence, the impugned order is challenged in this writ petition. 3. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit. In the counter it is stated as follows: (i) The Vishnu Kanchee village was a Ryotwari village and settlement was introduced in this village during the Fasli year 1320 i.e., in the calendar year 1910. As per the resettlement 'A' Register S.No.281 was subdivided as 281/1 and 281/2. The land in S.No.281/1 measuring an extent of 0.07 acre was shown as Government dry land stood in the name of V.Arunachala Mudali and the land in other S.No.281/2 measuring an extent of 119.12 acres was recorded as Government Poromboke-Vegavathi river and there was no subdivision as 281/3. (ii) However, from the records pertaining to the orders of Settlement Tahsildar dated 10.08.1967, an extent of 0.20 cents in S.No.281/2 was reported to have been transferred as inam during the year 1916 and this extent of 0.20 cents of land was assigned new notation number as S.No.281/3 and registered as personal grant confirmed under Title Deed No. 758 and Title Deed No.759. (iii) As such, the Settlement Tahsildar conducted suo-motu enquiry, under the provisions of the Act 30/1963 and observed that though the land was granted by the Government under T.D.Nos.758 and 759, neither the said land was localizable nor under the physical possession of the claimants at that time and accordingly the Settlement Tahsildar has passed the orders in proceedings dated 10.08.1967, clarifying the portion of unlocalizable inam land in S.No.281/3 as riverbed since it lies within the S.No.281/2 without mapping under Section 10 of Act 30/1963 and disallowed Ryotwari Patta. (iv) Aggrieved against the said decision of the Settlement Tahsildar the claimant Shanmugam preferred a revision before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chengalpattu, who in his Orders RP2/73/Sec13/KPM/30/63, dated 30.06.1973, rejected the claim for grant of Patta on the ground that appeal will lie only before the Minor Inam Abolition Tribunal, since the earlier order of the Settlement Tahsildar was passed under Section 10 of Act 30/1963. (v) According to the first respondent, settlement proceedings in respect of the land in question has reached finality. Therefore, the third respondent cannot once again invoke the powers under Act 30/1963 for  issuance of Patta. Therefore, the first respondent Principal Secretary and Commissioner of land Administration has rightly set aside the order of the third respondent and hence prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that though the order of the third respondent passed under the Act 30/1963 granting Patta, is only to set right the errors committed by the earlier Settlement Officer. It is his contention that the title is traceable from the year 1915, which has been admitted by the respondents. The Civil suit which was already filed with regard to S.No.281/3 and subsequent second appeal filed also concluded holding the rights of the parties in S.No.281/3. Therefore, the third respondent has rightly taken note of all the title deeds and Civil Court judgments and granted Patta. Therefore, the first respondent has no Authority under the Act 30/1963, to interfere with the order passed by the third respondent. Hence, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the impugned order lacks jurisdiction and cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 5. Further, according to the learned Senior Counsel, the impugned order itself indicated that the S.No.281/3 was in existence prior to the settlement proceedings under Act 30/1963. The Settlement Officer has also held that S.No.281/3 was wrongly annexed with S.No.281/2. Whereas, the Assistant Settlement Officer without any notice declined Patta on the ground that the land is unlocalizable and the claimant was not in possession of the property. The Settlement Officer after conducting proper enquiry and inspection of the property taking into consideration various documents and Civil Court judgments as rightly granted Patta hence, the first respondent has no right whatsoever to interfere with the orders of the Settlement Officer and hence seeks to quash the same. The Settlement Officer after conducting proper enquiry and inspection of the property taking into consideration various documents and Civil Court judgments as rightly granted Patta hence, the first respondent has no right whatsoever to interfere with the orders of the Settlement Officer and hence seeks to quash the same. 6. Whereas, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent submitted that the settlement proceedings has already been concluded and Patta has been refused in respect of the land in question in the year 1973 itself and the same has reached finality. After 40 years of such finality, the third respondent assuming the powers as an Appellate Authority had once again issued Patta which is not permissible in law. Hence the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the orders of the third respondent itself is without any jurisdiction and therefore issuance of Patta does not arise at all. The first respondent have power to cancel such illegal orders and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. I have heard the learned counsel on either side and also perused the entire materials. 8. The land in question is only in respect of 13.30 cents out of 20 cents in S.No.281/3. The petitioners traces the title from the year 1915. It is not disputed that the petitioners have purchased the said property during the years 1970-1973 from their predecessor-in-title. It is also not disputed that there was a Civil Suit in O.S.No.94 of 1997 which culminated into second appeal. One of the schedule in O.S.No.94 of 1997 relates to S.No.281/3 and the Courts concluded that plaintiffs in the above suit are not entitled to S.No.281/3. On the other hand the defendant has proved to be in possession for more than 42 years and therefore perfected the title by adverse possession. These facts are not in dispute. 9. Now the issue is with regard to issuance of Patta by third respondent Assistant Settlement Officer under Act 30/1963. It is relevant to note that the entire village of Kancheepuram is a Ryotwari village and resettlement was introduced in this village in Fasli 1320 and settlement proceedings was also initiated under Act 30/1963. These facts are not in dispute. 9. Now the issue is with regard to issuance of Patta by third respondent Assistant Settlement Officer under Act 30/1963. It is relevant to note that the entire village of Kancheepuram is a Ryotwari village and resettlement was introduced in this village in Fasli 1320 and settlement proceedings was also initiated under Act 30/1963. The Settlement Tahsildar by his order dated 10.08.1967, held that an extent of 20 cents in S.No.281/2 was reported to be transferred as Inam during the year 1916 and this extent of 20 cents of land was assigned new notation number as S.No.281/3 and registered as personal grand confirmed under Title Deed No.758 and Title Deed No.759. Having found that S.No.281/3 was in existence it was registered as personal grant in Title Deed Nos.758 and 759 and the Settlement Officer initiated suo motu enquiry under the provisions of Act 30/1963. By order dated 10.08.1967, the Settlement Officer has observed that the land was given as Inam by the Government under T.D.Nos.758 and 759 and it is not localizable on ground and the claimant is not in physical possession of S.No.281/3 which was carved from S.No.281/2 and there is no mapping for S.No.281/3 and held that portion of unlocalisable Inam land in S.No.281/3 as 'River Bed' on site and that it lies within S.No.281/2 and no one is entitled to a ryotwari patta for this portion under Section 10 of the Act 30/1963 and disallowed ryotwari, Patta. 10. It appears that predecessor-in-title one Shanmugam was aggrieved by the decision of the Settlement Tahsildar, filed revision before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chengalpet which has been rejected on the ground that appeal will lie only before the Special Appellate Tribunal since the order was passed by the Settlement Tahsildar under Section 10 of the Act 30/1963. From the records it appears that Patta in respect of S.No.281/3 has been rejected on the ground that it is not localizable on ground and the claimant is not in physical possession of the said portion and the order has reached finality i.e., the order of the Settlement Officer has reached finality. 11. It is relevant to note that as per Section 25 of Act 30/1963 any person aggrieved by any decision under Section 10 may within 3 months from the said date file appeal before the Tribunal. 11. It is relevant to note that as per Section 25 of Act 30/1963 any person aggrieved by any decision under Section 10 may within 3 months from the said date file appeal before the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal may in its discretion entertain an appeal by the Government at any time if it appears to the Tribunal that the decision of the Settlement Officer was vitiated by fraud or by mistake of fact. As against the order of the Tribunal appeal lies to the Special Appellate Tribunal as per Section 30 of the Act 30/1963. Therefore, once the Settlement Officer has already exercised his power and rejected the claim of the predecessors-in-title of the petitioners on the ground that land is not localizable and the claimant was not in physical possession at that point of time and the appeal remedy has not been availed, the order of the Settlement Officer has reached finality. The Settlement Officer after passing the order becomes functus officio and therefore once again he cannot entertain a claim for the same issue and take a contrary view. 12. The scheme of the Act only provides for an appeal as against the decision of the Settlement Officer. Once the order has reached finality, again the Settlement Officer cannot invoke jurisdiction to decide the same issue and issue patta on the ground that there was a mistake. Though various documents have been filed before the Settlement Officer indicating that title is traceable from the 1915 and the Civil Court has also dealt with the matter, that will not give power to the Settlement Officer to review his earlier findings. Therefore, once Settlement Officer's order reached finality, once again issuing Patta for the same land and on the different ground is not sustainable in the eye of law. 13. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the very order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, third respondent herein, is not valid in the eye of law. Further as the appeal remedy is also lost. However, the other documents filed along with the typed set and the order of the Settlement Officer and first respondent also indicate that S.No.281/3 was in fact in existence even at the time of settlement proceedings and it is also found out to be carved out of the Inam land i.e., the Inam land where petitioners predecessor had pre-existing right. However, the other documents filed along with the typed set and the order of the Settlement Officer and first respondent also indicate that S.No.281/3 was in fact in existence even at the time of settlement proceedings and it is also found out to be carved out of the Inam land i.e., the Inam land where petitioners predecessor had pre-existing right. Further, the Civil Court has already decided possession in favour of the petitioners predecessor in the suit filed by the rival parties. Therefore, there is no bar for the petitioners to establish their rights in a Civil Court by filing appropriate suit for declaration. Merely because settlement proceedings has reached finality that will not bar the party who had pre-existing right and title to establish the same before the Civil Court. 14. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the writ petition challenging the order of the first respondent is not sustainable as order passed by the third respondent itself is not valid in the eye of law and therefore the writ petition is dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioners to file appropriate civil suit for declaration to establish their title before a competent Civil Court. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.