JUDGMENT : S.S. Sundar, J. All these three Writ Appeals are connected with each other and they arise out of the common order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 07.04.2011 in W.P.Nos.12613 and 24522 of 2001. 2. The appellants 1 to 6 in W.A.No.1314 of 2011 are the petitioners in W.P.No.24522 of 2001. The deceased second petitioner in W.P.No.24522 of 2001, who is the 2nd appellant, is shown as dead in the cause title even in the Writ Appeal in W.A.No.1314 of 2011. The legal heirs of 1st appellant were brought on record as appellants 7 to 10 during pendency of appeal. 3. The appellants in W.A.No.844 of 2011 are the petitioners 10 and 21 in W.P.No.12613 of 2001. 4. The appellant in W.A.No.845 of 2011 is the 1st petitioner in WP.No.12613/2001. He died during the pendency of the appeal and his legal representatives were impleaded as the appellants 2 to 4 by the order of this Court in C.M.P.No.16416 of 2022, dated 14.11.2022. 5. The appellants (respective writ petitioners) along with others, filed two Writ Petitions in WP.Nos.12613 and 24522/2001 challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai, dated 14.05.2001. The further prayer in WP.No.24522/2001 is to direct the respondents 1 to 4 in W.P.No.24522 of 2001 to issue patta in the name of the writ petitioners, in respect of the properties measuring an extent of 2.52 acres in S.Nos.229/1A and 230/7A in Koyambedu Village in erstwhile Chengaplet District. 6. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of these three Writ Appeals are as follows : (a) The Village Koyambedu (in erstwhile Chengalpet District) was an Inam Estate and the adjacent village Thirumangalam was a Jamin Estate within the meaning of Estate under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion in to Ryotwari) Act (Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948) and the properties in the two villages were notified under Act 26 of 1948 (hereinafter called as 'the Act'). (b) By G.O.No.3157, Revenue Department, dated 09.12.1950, and vide G.O.No.2302 dated 01.09.1951, the villages were notified and taken over under the Act. (c) One Kalpagammal, wife of Sri. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer purchased several properties in Koyambedu Village and Thirumangalam Village including the land which is the subject matter of these Writ Appeals under a few sale deeds executed by erstwhile ryots in respect of their Kudivaram right. (c) One Kalpagammal, wife of Sri. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer purchased several properties in Koyambedu Village and Thirumangalam Village including the land which is the subject matter of these Writ Appeals under a few sale deeds executed by erstwhile ryots in respect of their Kudivaram right. One Amavasai and Alavattan along with their legal heirs of one Alavatan who were holding Kudivaram right executed five Sale Deeds in favour of Smt. Kalpagammal. By virtue of two Sale Deeds vide Doc.Nos.8 of 1929 and 231 of 1930, dated 31.12.1929, a Sale Deed [Doc.No.791 of 1930] dated 16.06.1930, a Sale Deed [vide Doc.No.653 of 1931] dated 30.05.1931 and a Sale Deed [vide Doc.No.953 of 1931] dated 15.07.1931, the kudiwaram right was transfered in the name of Smt. Kalpagammal, wife of Sri. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer. (d) After the lands were notified and taken over under the Act, the settlement proceedings were initiated and it is admitted that by proceedings of the Assistant Settlement Tahsildar, Chitthoor, dated 31.07.1952, ryotwari patta was granted to the said Ranganatha Iyer. It is admitted that Sri. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer was the erstwhile Zamindar of Thirumangalam as he had acquired the said right by a document. He appears to have purchased private Kambatham lands [about 200 acres] apart from the 5 Sale Deeds in the name of his wife between 1929 and 1945. Sri. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer also issued patta in respect of the entire lands in favour of his sons to show that the lands are in the physical enjoyment of his sons and claimed ryotwari patta during settlement that he is entitled to patta in respect of private kambatham lands under Section 12[a][i] and for the remaining lands under Section 12[b][ii] having acquired the same from the ryots. All the children of Sri. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer have consented before the Assistant Settlement Officer for issuing ryotwari patta in favour of Sri. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer. This ryotwari patta was given in respect of the entire lands purchased in the name of his wife from Amavasai and Alavatan vahaiyara as per proceedings of Assistant Settlement Officer dated 31.07.1952. It is admitted that wife of Sri. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer died long before the settlement proceedings. (e) Several decades after the Ryotwari Patta was issued in favour of Sri. It is admitted that wife of Sri. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer died long before the settlement proceedings. (e) Several decades after the Ryotwari Patta was issued in favour of Sri. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer, a few persons who represented the family of one Amavasai and Alavattan, who had executed the sale deeds in favour of the wife of A.K. Ranganatha Iyer, filed an application before the Assistant Settlement Officer claiming Ryotwari Patta in respect of an extent of 2.29 acres in New Survey No.229/1A and 2.06 acres in S.No.230/7A in Thirumangalam Village in the Koyambedu-Nungambakkam Taluk. Though the delay was more than 4 decades, the delay was referred to Director of Survey and Settlement, who condoned the delay and directed the Assistant Settlement Officer to take necessary action. (f) It is admitted that one Sri. Ezhumalai and 20 others through their Power Agent, by name R. Chandrasekaran and one other person, by name Sri. Balakrishnan, son of R.D. Bhaskar, submitted the application as if one Amavasai and others, who are the erstwhile owners of the land, died leaving behind them as legal heirs, and that the land was wrongly registered in the name of A.K. Ranganatha Iyer and A.R. Rajagopalan during settlement proceedings. It is pertinent to mention that Sri. Elumalai and others, put forth their claim only as legal heirs of Amavasai and Alavattan on the strength of the Sale Deeds executed by one Vedammal under Doc.No.1702 and Doc.No.1703 of 1914 dated 13.11.1914, suppressing the alienations by their predecessors in title conveying their Kudivaram right under registered Sale Deeds. (g) From a reading of the order dated 31.07.1998 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, it is seen that the applications were submitted by the said Elumalai and others and one Balakrishnana claiming Ryotwari Patta in respect of an extent of 2.28 acres in S.No.229/1A and also an extent of 2.06 acres in S.No.230/7 in Thirumangalam Village, Koyambedu, as the legal representatives of the previous owners, without referring to any transaction or any statement of facts justifying a claim through the persons in favour of whom Ryotwari Patta had already been issued by the Settlement Authority in 1952. When the application filed before the Assistant Settlement Officer was pending, the writ petitioners (herein) approached this Court and obtained direction for early disposal of the representation of the petitioners and accordingly, the Assistant Settlement Officer conducted an enquiry and found that the Ryotwari Patta in respect of the land to which the applicants claim Ryotwari Patta, had already been dealt with and Ryotwari Patta had also been issued in favour Thiru.A.K.Ranganatha Iyer Iyer under Section 12(a)(i) and 12[b][ii] of the Act. Since Ryotwari patta had been granted in favour of land holder having Kudivaram right by Sale Deeds executed by Amavasai and Alavatan and others, the Assistant Settlement Officer held that the claim for Ryotwari patta under Section 11[a] of Act 26 of 1948 is not sustainable. (h) The Assistant Settlement Tahsildar, while passing an order, has referred to the character of the properties and how A.K. Ranganatha Iyer Iyer was given Ryotwari Patta as landholder who acquired the kudivaram right. It is observed that none of the claimants have established their right or enjoyment. It is pertinent to mention that none of the claimants who derived title from the vendors of A.K. Ranganatha Iyer's wife would plead how any property is left with their predecessors after the five Sale Deeds. (i) In the meanwhile, the aggrieved persons claiming to be the legal heirs of the previous owners, namely Amavasai and Alavattan filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.5836 of 1998 on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai, for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/Sri Krishna Tiles and Potteries from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the properties in question. During the pendency of the suit, an application was filed in I.A.No.13847 of 1998 in O.S.No.5836 of 1998 before the City Civil Court, Chennai for temporary injunction and the same was also dismissed by order dated 09.10.1998. It is now stated by the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents that the said suit was dismissed as not pressed long back and no application is filed to restore the suit on file. It is also admitted before this Court that the suit filed by the so-called legal heirs of original owner, was dismissed for non-prosecution. It is also on record that two other suits filed by other persons claiming through Amavasai and Alavattan in OS.No.2461/1992 and 3925/1993 were dismissed. It is also admitted before this Court that the suit filed by the so-called legal heirs of original owner, was dismissed for non-prosecution. It is also on record that two other suits filed by other persons claiming through Amavasai and Alavattan in OS.No.2461/1992 and 3925/1993 were dismissed. Despite the claim made some of by the writ petitioners as legal heirs of the original ryots, namely Amavasai and Alavattan being negatived by Civil Court, they filed a revision petition before the Settlement Officer as against the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, rejecting the claim of Sri. Elumalai and 20 others and one Balakrishnan. The Revision Petition filed before the Settlement Officer was dismissed by order dated 19.11.1998. (j) The Settlement Officer, by order dated 19.11.1998, rejected the petition on the ground that the revision petition is not maintainable, as the same was not filed within 30 days from the date of the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer. It was observed by the Settlement Officer that he is not empowered to pass the order condoning the delay in filing the revision petition. He dismissed the revision only on the ground of limitation. The said order of the Settlement Officer was challenged by the writ petitioners and others before the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, Chennai. Before the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, the petition filed by B. Balakrishnan was entertained as a revision petition under Section 11(a) of the Act. (k) It is to be noted that in the revision petition stated to have been filed by the power of attorney agent of writ petitioners before the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, against the order of the Settlement Officer, dated 10.11.1998, there is no reference to the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer granting Ryotwari Patta in favour of Sri. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer in 1952. (l) By an order dated 05.07.1999, the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, Chennai, namely the second respondent herein, allowed the revision petition. The Settlement Officer rejected the Appeal only on the ground of limitation. However, the Director of Survey and Settlement ignoring admitted facts and the legal implications of previous proceedings which have become final passed an order by placing facts contrary to records. The Settlement Officer rejected the Appeal only on the ground of limitation. However, the Director of Survey and Settlement ignoring admitted facts and the legal implications of previous proceedings which have become final passed an order by placing facts contrary to records. The Commissioner of Survey and Settlement directed grant of patta for 1.76 acres in S.No.229/1A and 3.00 Acres in S.No.230/7A in favour of revision petitioner Thiru. B. Balakrishnan who is just the power of attorney holder as if the power of attorney holder is entitled to patta out of the excess area which remained unsettled under section 11[a] of Act 26 of 1948. Patta stands in the name of M/s.Krishna Tiles and Potteries, the 5th respondent in WA.No.1314/2011 was directed to be revised and modified accordingly. It is surprising to note that the petitioner maintained in his petition that ryotwari patta had been wrongly given but the revision is entertained as a petition in respect of lands which were unsettled under Section 11[a] of the Act. (m) As against the said order of the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, the fifth respondent before the Writ Court, filed a revision petition before the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land and Administration, Chennai. By a reasoned order, the Commissioner of Land Administration set aside the order of the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement and allowed the revision petition filed by M/s.Krishna Tiles and Potteries (Madras) Private Limited who had purchased the properties from persons who got ryotwari patta during settlement. (n) The Commissioner of Land Administration, while setting aside the order of the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, has referred to the original documents of title and the proceedings throughout indicating that the said M/s.Krishna Tiles and Potteries have acquired the property(ies) from the persons who were given Ryotwari Patta in the year 1952 during settlement under the Act. (o) The said order of the Special Commissioner of Land Administration, dated 14.05.2001, is challenged before the learned Single Judge in the respective Writ Petitions, as indicated above, and both the Writ Petitions were dismissed by the Writ Court. (o) The said order of the Special Commissioner of Land Administration, dated 14.05.2001, is challenged before the learned Single Judge in the respective Writ Petitions, as indicated above, and both the Writ Petitions were dismissed by the Writ Court. (p) The learned Single Judge found that the order of the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement is quite contrary to the provisions of the Act and that the order of Commissioner of Land Administration is in accordance with the provisions of the Act and that the appellants are not entitled to any right over the properties, to which the fifth respondent's predecessor in interest was given Ryotwari Patta. (q) The fifth respondent in the Writ Petition, namely M/s.Krishna Tiltes and Potteries (Madras) Pvt. Ltd., sold the property(ies), which is the subject matter of these present Writ Appeals, in favour of M/s.Ozone Constructions Pvt. Ltd., who is impleaded as respondent No.12 in W.P.No.12613 of 2021. (r) The learned Single Judge, while considering the merits of the claim of the writ petitioners, found that the writ petitioners have not made out a case to show how ryotwari patta was wrongly given in 1952. (s) It is to be pointed out that in the revision petition filed by the aggrieved persons who claim to be the legal heirs of the original owners, have filed application before the Assistant Settlement Officer to revise the order granting patta in favour of others. However, the fact that the application was filed by the legal heirs of the original owner under Section 11 of the Act is not in dispute. Therefore, the learned Single Judge found that the order of the Director of Survey and Settlement, namely the second respondent in the Writ Petition, reopening the case in 1996 on the ground that the application ought to have been considered under Section 11 of the Act, is erroneous. (t) Finding that the Settlement Officer has only rejected the revision petition on the ground of limitation and that the revision petition is not filed against the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer passed in 1952, but against the order of the Settlement Officer, rejecting the appeal, the learned Single Judge found that the order of Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement is erroneous and without jurisdiction. (u) It is to be noted that the Assistant Settlement Officer granted Ryotwari Patta in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the fifth respondent only under Section 12(a)(i) and 12(b)(ii) of the Act in the year 1952 and hence, the learned Single Judge held that the second respondent, namely the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement has no power or jurisdiction to suo-motu review the order under Section 5(2) of the Act as the power under Section 5[2] of Act 26 of 1948 can be exercised only when there is no remedy of appeal and an appeal lies before Tribunal as against the order passed under Section 12 of the Act granting ryotwari patta in favour of landholder. (v) The learned Single Judge further considered the issues on merits and found that no documents or materials are produced before the authorities below for grant of Ryotwari Patta in favour of the writ petitioners or their predecessor-in-interest. Challenging the said order passed by the learned Single Judge, the above Writ Appeals are filed before this Court. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants in W.A.Nos.844 and 845 of 2011 made the following submissions:- (a) A Preliminary objection was raised at the time when the Writ Petition was filed and the learned Single Judge of this Court has over-ruled the objection. Referring to the order passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.75 of 2008 in W.P.No.12613 of 2011, learned counsel submitted that the position regarding the maintainability of the Writ Petitions, was considered by this Court at the interlocutory stage itself and therefore, the jurisdiction or authority of the Commissioner/Director of Survey and Settlement who had cancelled or revised the orders of the Settlement Officer, cannot be considered by this Court at the time of disposing the main Writ Petition. (b) The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the Writ Petitions, failed to consider the fact that the Assistant Settlement Officer granted Ryotwari Patta by order dated 31.07.1952 without any jurisdiction. Since the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer granting Ryotwari Patta in favour of the contesting respondents, the predecessor-in-tile of the contesting respondents, is non-est in law and the order passed by the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement is perfectly in order, the impugned order that is challenged in the Writ Petition, passed by the Commissioner of Land Administration, is erroneous and unsustainable in law. (c) The Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement has suo-motu power and jurisdiction to revise the order of the Settlement Officer, which was challenged before him, in view of the power conferred upon him under Section 5(2) of the Act. (d) The order of Settlement Officer rejecting the revision petition filed by the appellants on the ground that the application is barred by limitation, is contrary to law. (e) The learned Single Judge, while dealing with the Writ Petitions, failed to consider an important issue that no patta was issued in favour of the Zamindar, namely A.K. Ranganatha Iyer and therefore there was no need to challenge the proceedings, dated 31.07.1952. The appellants in all these Writ Appeals, who are the legal heirs of the original owner by name Alavattan or Amavasai, are entitled to Ryotwari Patta under the Act. Though no application was filed by the Ryots to get Ryotwari Patta within time or the extended time, the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement is competent to condone the delay and exercise his own suo-motu power as the Director of Survey and Settlement. (f) The Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, while setting aside the order of the Settlement Officer, has considered the eligibility of the appellants to get Ryotwari Patta on merits. The reasons assigned by the Director of Settlement are not properly appreciated by the Commissioner of Land Administration or the learned Single Judge while disposing of the Writ Petitions. (g) The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration has not considered the merits of the claim of the appellants with reference to the documents filed by them and the Special Commissioner of Land Administration has failed to give proper reasons to set aside the findings of the Director of Settlement. (h) The learned Single Judge failed to consider that the contesting respondents have not established as to how their predecessor-in-title, namely A.K. Ranganatha Iyer were entitled to claim Ryotwari Patta under Section 12 of the Act. (i) The learned Single Judge has not properly considered the principles of law. 8. The respective arguments learned counsel for the appellants in W.A.Nos.844 and 845 of 2011 were endorsed by the other when the matter was heard earlier. (i) The learned Single Judge has not properly considered the principles of law. 8. The respective arguments learned counsel for the appellants in W.A.Nos.844 and 845 of 2011 were endorsed by the other when the matter was heard earlier. However, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in W.A.No.844 of 2011, circulated a letter dated 29.11.2012 and informed the Court that due to some personal inconvenience, the learned counsel could not appear for the case on 30.11.2022 and requested that the matter may be listed after one week. 9. This Court started hearing the arguments of the learned counsel on either side quite some time back and at the request of the counsels appearing one after another, the matter was adjourned on few occasions. After hearing the matter earlier on 28.11.2022, this Court directed the matter to be listed under the caption "for orders" on the top of the list so that the Court would dictate the order in the Open Court. However, the learned counsel for the appellants in WA.No.884/2011 came forward with a lame excuse to get an adjournment without proper reason or cause. Having spent substantial time for hearing the matter and completed the hearing of all the counsels, we find it difficult to adjourn these appeals by one week for no reason. Since common issues arise for consideration and appellants in WA.No.844/2011 are represented by same counsel before the Writ Court and all the parties were led by common counsel before the Commissioner/Director of Settlement and also before the Special Commissioner of Land Administration, we declined the request and proceed to hear the case on merits and to dispose of these appeals by this common judgment. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents submitted that the appellants, who are claiming to be the legal heirs of Alavatton and Amavasai, have no right to claim title or possession in respect of the disputed lands, as their predecessors-in-title, have executed the sale deeds in favour of the wife of A.K. Ranganatha Iyer between 1929 and 1931. He relied upon several documents tracing the title of A.K. Ranganatha Iyer, who was the then Zamindar of Tirumangalam Zamin holding a large extent of Ryotwari lands under his personal cultivation apart from purchasing kudiwaram right from the ryots. 11. He relied upon several documents tracing the title of A.K. Ranganatha Iyer, who was the then Zamindar of Tirumangalam Zamin holding a large extent of Ryotwari lands under his personal cultivation apart from purchasing kudiwaram right from the ryots. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents, referring to the order passed by the Special Commissioner of Land Administration and the learned Single Judge in the Writ petitions, submitted that the present Writ Appeals are liable to be dismissed for want of merits and with exemplary costs, as the appellants have come forward with a false plea/fake claim, just as any land grabbers would do. 12. It is also the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents that the appellants cannot set at naught the binding final orders of the Assisting Settlement Officer in 1952 granting ryotwari patta recognising Thiru. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer as person who is entitled to apply for Ryotwari Patta under Section 12(a)(i) and Section 12(b)(ii) of the Act. 13. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents also submitted that the Commissioner and Director of Settlement has no power or jurisdiction or authority to unsettle the settlement which had taken place in the year 1952 and he has no Suo Motu power to revise the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer under Section 5(2). It was pointed out that the application by writ petitioners is not maintainable under Section 11[a] when it is alleged that ryotwari patta has been wrongly granted in the year 1952. 14. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents supported the order of the Special Commissioner of Land Administration, which is impugned in the Writ Petitions. He relied upon a few precedents to demonstrate how the Commissioner and Director of Settlement after several decades, has passed orders contrary to law and settled principles which has been corrected by the Commissioner of Land Administration. 15. Before considering the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, and private respondents as well and the learned Special Government Pleader, it is necessary to state the following facts: 16. With an intention and object to acquire the rights of the land holders of certain estates and to abolish the Zamindari system and to introduce the Ryotwari tenure, the Madras (Tamil Nadu) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948) was enacted. With an intention and object to acquire the rights of the land holders of certain estates and to abolish the Zamindari system and to introduce the Ryotwari tenure, the Madras (Tamil Nadu) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948) was enacted. All the lands which satisfies the definition of 'Estate' was taken over by the Government subject to the rights of the land holders as well as Ryots to get the Ryotwari Patta in recognition of their pre-existing right. 17. As per the Act, the entire Estate including communal lands, shall stand transferred to the Government free of all encumbrances. By virtue of the Act, the rights of all intermediaries like Zamindar, Inamdar, etc., were abolished and upon issuing a Notification taking over the land, rights of the intermediaries gets abrogated subject to their right to claim compensation and all other reliefs that are provided under the Act. 18. Under the Act, the Settlement Tahsildars were appointed to carry out the functions and duties assigned to them under the Act. Under Section 4 of the Act, the Government was required to appoint Director of Settlement to carry out the survey and settlement operations in Estates and introduce Ryotwari settlement therein. However, the Director of Settlement shall be subordinate to the Board of Revenue [now Commissioner of Land Administration]. 19. Some of the provisions which are relevant in the present context, are Sections 5 to 8 and 11 to 15 and 64-C of the Act and they are extracted as follows : 5. Appointment and functions of Settlement Officer.- (1) As soon as may be after the passing of this Act, the Government shall appoint one or more Settlement Officers to carry out the functions and duties assigned to them under this Act. (2) Every Settlement Officer shall be subordinate to the Director and shall be guided by such lawful instructions as he may issue from time to time; and the Director shall also have power to cancel or revise any of the orders, acts or proceedings of the Settlement Officer, other than those in respect of which an appeal lies to the Tribunal. 6. Managers of estates. - (1) With effect on and from the notified date the Government shall appoint one or more persons to manage the estate. 6. Managers of estates. - (1) With effect on and from the notified date the Government shall appoint one or more persons to manage the estate. (2) Every manager shall be subordinate to the District Collector and shall be guided by such lawful instructions as he may issue from time to time; and the District Collector shall also have power to cancel or revise any of the orders, acts or proceedings of the manager. 7. Powers of control of the [Board of Revenue.] - The Board of Revenue shall have power - (a) to give effect to the provisions of this Act and in particular to superintend the taking over of estates and to make due arrangements for the interim administration thereof; (b) to issue instruction for the guidance of the Director, District Collectors, Settlement Officers and managers of estates; (c) to cancel or revise any of the orders, acts or proceedings of any Settlement Officer other than those in respect of which an appeal lies to the Tribunal or of any managers; and (d) to cancel or revise any of the orders, acts or proceedings of the Director or of any District Collector, including those passed, done or taken in the exercise of revisional powers. 8. Constitution of Tribunals for certain purposes. - (1) The Government shall constitute as many Tribunals as may be necessary for the purposes of this Act. [(2) Each Tribunal shall consist of one person only who shall be a Judicial Officer not below the rank of District Judge or Additional District Judge.] (3) Each Tribunal shall have such jurisdiction and over such estates or parts thereof, as the Government may, by notification from time to time, determine. (4) Every Tribunal shall have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908), when trying a suit or when hearing an appeal. 11. Lands in which ryot is entitled to ryotwari pattas. (4) Every Tribunal shall have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908), when trying a suit or when hearing an appeal. 11. Lands in which ryot is entitled to ryotwari pattas. - Every ryot in an estate shall, with effect on and from the notified date, be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of- (a) all ryoti lands which, immediately before the notified date, were properly included or ought to have been properly included in his holding and which are not either lanka lands or lands in respect of which a landholder or some other person is entitled to a ryotwari patta under any other provision of this Act; and (b) all lanka lands in his occupation immediately before the notified date, such lands having been in his occupation or in that of his predecessors-in-title continuously from the 1st day of July 1939: Provided that no person who has been admitted into possession of any land by a landholder on or after the 1st day of July 1945 shall, except where the Government, after an examination of all the circumstances otherwise direct, be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of such land. Explanation. - No lessee of any lanka land and no person to whom a right to collect the rent of any land has been leased before the notified date, including an ijaradar or a farmer of rent, shall be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of such land under this section. 12. Lands in Zamindari estate in which landholder is entitled to ryotwari patta. 12. Lands in Zamindari estate in which landholder is entitled to ryotwari patta. - In the case of a zamindari estate, the landholder shall with effect on and from the notified date, be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of - (a) all lands (including lanka lands) which, immediately before the notified date, (i) belonged to him as private land within the meaning of section 3, clause (10)(a) of the Estates Land Act, or (ii) stood recorded as his private land in a record prepared under the provisions of Chapter XI or Chapter XII of the said Act, not having been subsequently converted into ryoti land; (b) (i) all lands which were properly included or which ought to have been properly included, in the holding of a ryot and which have been acquired by the landholder, by inheritance or succession under a will, provided that the landholder has cultivated such lands himself, by his own servants or by hired labour, with his own or hired stock, in the ordinary course of husbandry from the date of such acquisition or the 1st day of July 1939, whichever is later and has been in direct and continuous possession of such lands from such later date; (ii) all lands which were properly included, or which ought to have been properly included, in the holding of a ryot and which have been acquired by the landholder by purchase, exchange or gift, but not including purchase at a sale for arrears of rent, provided that the landholder has cultivated such lands himself, by his own servants or by hired labour, with his own or hired stock in the ordinary course of husbandry from the 1st day of July 1945 and has been in direct and continuous possession of such lands from that date; (iii) all lands [not being (i) lanka lands, (ii) lands of the description specified in section 3, clause (16), sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the Estates Land Act, or (iii) forest lands] which have been abandoned or relinquished by a ryot, or which have never been in the occupation of a ryot, provided that the landholder has cultivated such lands himself, by his own servants or by hired labour, with his own or hired stock in the ordinary course of husbandry from the 1st day of July 1939, and has been in direct and continuous possession of such land from that date. Explanation. - "Cultivate" in this clause includes the planting and rearing of topes, gardens and orchards, but does not include the rearing of topes of spontaneous growth. 14. Lands in an under-tenure estate in which landholder is entitled to ryotwari patta. - The grant of a ryotwari patta to a landholder in respect of lands in an under-tenure estate shall be regulated in accordance with the provisions of- (a) section 13, if it has been decided under section 10 that such estate was created before the date of the permanent or temporary settlement of the principal estate or the 13th day of July 1802, as the case may be; and (b) section 12, in other cases. 14A. Ryotwari patta not to be granted in respect of private tank or oorani. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no ryotwari patta shall be granted in respect of any private tank or oorani. (2) Any ryotwari patta granted in respect of any private tank or oorani under this Act before the date of the publication of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Amendment Act, 1974, in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, shall stand cancelled, and for purposes of compensation under this Act, the private tank or oorani shall be deemed to be land in respect of which neither the landholder nor any other person is entitled to ryotwari patta under this Act.] 15. Determination of lands in which the landholder is entitled to ryotwari patta under foregoing provisions. - (1) The Settlement Officer shall examine the nature and history of all lands in respect of which the landholder claims a ryotwari patta under section 12,13 or 14, as the case may be, and decide in respect of which lands the claim should be allowed. - (1) The Settlement Officer shall examine the nature and history of all lands in respect of which the landholder claims a ryotwari patta under section 12,13 or 14, as the case may be, and decide in respect of which lands the claim should be allowed. [(2) (a) Against a decision of the Settlement Officer under sub-section (1), the Government may, within one year from the date of commencement of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Amendment Act, 1954 (Tamil Nadu Act XXXIV of 1954), or from the date of the decision, whichever is later/and any person aggrieved by such decision may, within two months from the date, appeal to the Tribunal:] Provided that the Tribunal may, in its discretion, allow further time not exceeding six months for the filing of any such appeal: Provided further that 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. (b) The decision of the Tribunal on any such appeal shall be final and not be liable to be questioned in any Court of Law. 64C. Finality of orders passed under this Act. - (1) Any order passed by the Government or [other authority under this Act] in respect of matters to be determined for the purposes of this Act shall, subject only to any appeal or revision provided by or under this Act, be final. (2) No such order shall be liable to be questioned in any Court of Law. 20. From the materials available on record, it is seen that the lands in Koyambedu-Thirumangalam villages is an Estate and these two villages were taken over under the Act. 21. Koyambedu was an Inam Estate and Thirumangalam was a Zamindar Estate. Koyambedu Village was taken over by a Notification dated 01.10.1951 and Thirumangalam Village was notified by the Government Order, dated 09.12.1950 and taken over on 09.01.1951. However, the two villages were bridged to form a combined village known as Koyambedu Village. While the erstwhile Koyambedu Village, was assigned survey numbers in S.Nos.1 to 206; S.Nos.207 to 322 was given to Thiurmangalam Village. 22. One Sri. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer appears to have acquired the rights as Zamindar of Thirumangalam Village. However, the two villages were bridged to form a combined village known as Koyambedu Village. While the erstwhile Koyambedu Village, was assigned survey numbers in S.Nos.1 to 206; S.Nos.207 to 322 was given to Thiurmangalam Village. 22. One Sri. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer appears to have acquired the rights as Zamindar of Thirumangalam Village. It appears that A.K. Ranganatha Iyer, Zamindar, acquired several hundreds of acres and some of them were held to be his private lands. He had acquired ryotwari rights from the persons in enjoyment in respect of vast extent of lands in the name of his wife and it is seen that the said A.K. Ranganatha Iyer claimed that he was the real owner, as his wife in whose name the lands were acquired, was just a name-lender (Benami). 23. Thiru. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer purchased ryotwari right in a few acres of land from one Amavasai and Alavattan vagairah under a few documents from 1929 to 1931 in the name of his wife. Even though the lands were originally held by Tmt. Vedambal, one Amavasai, son of Alavattan and another person by name Alavattan, had purchased the lands from Tmt.Vedambal. All the sons of Alavattan, including Amavasai and one Alavattan along with others sold the properties in favour of Tmt. Kalpagambal, the wife of Thiru. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer. Since A.K. Rnganathan was a Zamin of Thirumangalam, he had vast extent of lands in his holding as private lands and purchased Ryotwari Patta rights from several other persons who were doing cultivation. The said A.K. Ranganatha Iyer claimed Ryotwari Patta under Section 12 (a)(i) and Section12(b)(ii) of T.N. Act 26 of 1948 in respect of his private lands and as landholder who acquired kudiwaram rights respectively. 24. Thiru. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer submitted before the Assistant Settlement Officer that he is holding the lands and he is entitled to hold the lands, as his wife was just a "Benami". It is admitted that his wife died in 1948 when he filed an application before the Assistant Settlement Officer for Ryotwari Patta. His children had no objection for granting ryotwari patta in favour of A.K. Ranganatha Iyer even though patta for the ryotwari lands were given in their name. 25. It was noticed that the Zamindar Thiru. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer had granted Patta in the name of his two sons. His children had no objection for granting ryotwari patta in favour of A.K. Ranganatha Iyer even though patta for the ryotwari lands were given in their name. 25. It was noticed that the Zamindar Thiru. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer had granted Patta in the name of his two sons. He applied for Ryotwari Patta in his capacity as land-holder in respect of his private lands as well as transferee-in-interest of Kudiwaram right. It was by virtue of several sale deeds executed by Thiru.Alavattan and Amavasai and their family memebrs, A.K. Ranganatha Iyer applied Ryotwari Patta under Section 12(b)(ii) of the Act. There is no dispute that A.K. Ranganatha Iyer was granted Ryotwari Patta in respect of the vast extent of lands. Though majority of the lands were recognised as his private land in his holding, for which the land-holder is entitled to Ryotwari Patta under Section 12(a)(i) of the Act, he claimed Ryotwari Patta in respect of the lands purchased by him from the Ryots, under Section 12(b)(ii) of the Act. The Assistant Settlement Officer, by his proceedings dated 31.07.1952, after considering the nature of the claim and the provisions of the Act, granted Ryotwari Patta under two different provisions in respect of the lands acquired by him through different source as indicated above. 26. Nearly after 45 years, one Elumalai and 20 others, through their Power of Attorney by name R. Chandrasekaran and one other person, by name Balakrishnan, claimed Ryotwari Patta by making an application. Surprisingly, it is to be noted that the said individuals have claimed title on the basis of the documents under which one Amavasai and Alavattan had purchased the property from Tmt.Vedammal, wife of Thiruvengadam Pillai. The Assistant Settlement Officer, by order dated 31.07.1998, rejected the application on several grounds, not only on merits, but also on the ground that the claim is barred by limitation. The Assistant Settlement Officer specifically referred to in his order that the documents filed by the petitioners before him, did not prove that the properties were in the possession of the petitioners on the date of the Notification taking over the village under the Act. The Assistant Settlement Officer found that the claim which was made 45 years after settlement proceedings were concluded, cannot be given life. A specific observation was made that the claimants are not eligible to claim Ryotwari patta under Section 11(a) of Act. 27. The Assistant Settlement Officer found that the claim which was made 45 years after settlement proceedings were concluded, cannot be given life. A specific observation was made that the claimants are not eligible to claim Ryotwari patta under Section 11(a) of Act. 27. It is to be pointed out that one N. Adhikesavan and Panneerselvam through their Power of Attorney--P. Balakrishnan filed a civil suit in O.S.No.5836 of 1998 before the City Civil Court, Chennai and pending the said civil suit, they also filed an application seeking temporary injunction restraining M/s.Krishna Tiles and Potteries, which is one of the contesting respondent in the present Writ Appeals from interfering with their possession. After contest, the said interim application was dismissed by holding that the plaintiff has not produced any document to prove their title and that the document which was filed as Ex.A-4 (in the nature of Patta) issued by the Head-quarters of Deputy Tahsildar, Saidapet, dated 09.11.1961 is a fabricated document fraudulently obtained. The said suit was dismissed subsequently. 28. Further, aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, the affected parties filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer who dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. Strangely, the power of attorney agent of the writ petitions by name Balakrishnan filed a petition before the Commissioner and Director of Survey Settlement, who allowed the petition in favour of B. Balakrishnan and directed patta to be transferred in the name of B. Balakrishnan who is just an agent. As against the order passed by the Commissioner/Director of Survey and Settlement, M/s.Krishna Tiles and Potteries filed a revision petition before the Commissioner of Land Administration, who set aside the order of Director of Survey and Settlement. As against the order passed by the Commissioner of Land Administration, dated 14.05.2001 the aggrieved persons filed the Writ Petitions before this Court, and the writ petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 29. Considering the facts, pleadings and records and the arguments of the learned counsels appearing on either side, this Court is inclined to deal with the issues under the relevant headings. [A] Whether the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WPMP.No.75/2008 in WP.No.12613/2001 precludes the respondent from raising the issue regarding maintainability of the writ petition: 30. 29. Considering the facts, pleadings and records and the arguments of the learned counsels appearing on either side, this Court is inclined to deal with the issues under the relevant headings. [A] Whether the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WPMP.No.75/2008 in WP.No.12613/2001 precludes the respondent from raising the issue regarding maintainability of the writ petition: 30. During the pendency of the writ petition, the 5th respondent in WP.No.12613/2001 filed WP.MP.No.75/2008 to dismiss the writ petition on the preliminary objection that the writ petition is not maintainable. The 5th respondent raised an objection as regards maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the order of Assistant Settlement Officer in 1952 cannot be challenged by the petitioners in 1996 before the Director of Survey and Settlement and that the Director of Survey and Settlement has no power to condone the delay of more than 4 decades. A learned Single Judge of this Court, who heard the writ petition, by order dated 10.04.2008, dismissed WP.MP.No.75/2008 on the ground that the writ petitioners have not availed the alternative remedy available under Section 15[2] of the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948 and that the application arise under Section 11 of the Act. It is also held by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the miscellaneous petition that the suo motu power to cancel or revise the orders of Settlement Officer under Section 5[2] of the Act cannot be curtailed. Accepting the arguments of the learned Senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioners, the learned Single Judge held that only when there is a dispute with regard to grant of patta in respect of ryot lands, authorities need to decide under Section 15 of the Act and that the request of the writ petitioners who are claiming patta under Section 11 of Act 26/1948 cannot be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy under Section 15 of the Act. Since the learned Single Judge has held initially that writ petition is maintainable, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge has erroneously held that the application filed under Section 11[a] of the Act is not maintainable merely on the ground of delay. 31. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants are unsustainable either on facts and on law. 31. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants are unsustainable either on facts and on law. First of all, it is not in dispute that in respect of the subject matter of lands, ryotwari patta had already been granted in favour of Sri. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer, by the Assistant Settlement Officer in his proceedings dated 31.07.1952. The writ petitioners have approached the Assistant Settlement Officer after lapse of four decades by specifically pleading that ryotwari patta issued in favour of Sri. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer had been wrongly issued. 32. Section 11[a] of the Act deals with ryot lands which ought to have been included in the holdings of applicants who are seeking ryotwari patta under Section 11[a] of the Act. In the present case, the landholder himself purchased the kudiwaram right from Tvl.Amavasai and Alavattan Vagaiyara long back. From the proceedings dated 31.07.1952, the properties were held to be in the enjoyment of Sri. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer. Therefore, patta was granted in favour of Sri. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer under the category of landholder who had also acquired kudiwaram right. The claim of Sri. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer before the Assistant Settlement Officer falls under Section 12[b][ii] of the Act 26/1948. Since the sons of Sri. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer have recognised their father's right as a person holding kudiwaram and that patta in their favour was granted only by the landholder himself, this Court finds no illegality in recognising Mr. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer as a person entitled to ryotwari patta in terms of Section 12[b][ii] of the Act. This Court has already seen that the writ petitioners are only claiming under one Amavasai and Alavattan who have sold their Kudiwaram right in favour of Mrs. Kalpagammal, wife of Sri. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer between 1929 and 1931 under five different Sale Deeds. It is not the case of any of the claimants that their predecessor-in-interest had retained their kudiwaram right in respect of any parcels of land or had acquired kudiwaram right from Sri. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer or his wife after the five Sale Deeds were executed between 1929 and 1931. Though an attempt was made by writ petitioners before the Commissioner of Land Administration, the writ petitioners have not produced any document to support their argument and therefore, the Commissioner of Land Administration has rejected the contention of the writ petitioners. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer or his wife after the five Sale Deeds were executed between 1929 and 1931. Though an attempt was made by writ petitioners before the Commissioner of Land Administration, the writ petitioners have not produced any document to support their argument and therefore, the Commissioner of Land Administration has rejected the contention of the writ petitioners. Even before this Court, no document showing semblance of right in favour of appellants is produced. 33. Section 5[2] of the Act 26/1948 refers to the power of a Director to cancel or revise any orders or proceedings of the Settlement Officer, other than those in respect of which an appeal lies to the Tribunal. As rightly pointed out by the Commissioner of Land Administration, the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer in 1952 can be challenged only by way of an appeal under Section 15 of the Act and the suo motu power as contemplated under Section 5[2] of the Act is not available to the Director of Survey and Settlement. The Director of Survey and Settlement in his order dated 05.07.1999 has admitted this position. Therefore, the views expressed by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the petition filed by one of the respondents in the writ petition, is erroneous and without considering the statutory provisions and the legal implications of orders passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer in the year 1952. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants have no merits and this Court, sitting in appeal, is not bound by the order of the learned Single Judge in WMP.No.75/2008 dated 10.04.2008. [B] Whether the Assistant Settlement Officer granting Ryotwari patta in favour of predecessors-in-interest of contesting respondents by order dated 31.07.1952 is without jurisdiction and liable to be cancelled after four decades? 34. This Court carefully considered the proceedings of the Assistant Settlement Officer granting ryotwari patta in favour of Sri. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer by treating him as landholder acquiring kudiwaram right from the ryots. From the evidence recorded in the proceedings of Assistant Settlement Officer, the writ petitioners who claim to be the legal heirs of Tvl.Amavasai and Alavattan Vagaiyara had originally conveyed their kudiwaram right in favour of the wife of Sri. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer. Absolutely there is no claim from anyone of the writ petitioners that the predecessors-in-interest had retained kudiwaram right in respect of any parcels of land. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer. Absolutely there is no claim from anyone of the writ petitioners that the predecessors-in-interest had retained kudiwaram right in respect of any parcels of land. None of the legal heirs of Tvl.Amavasai and Alavattan have questioned the order of Settlement Officer by filing an appeal under Section 15 of the Act. 35. Under Section 64[c] of the Act 26/1948 any order passed by the Government or other authority, under the Act in respect of matters to be determined for the purpose of the Act, shall, subject only to any appeal or revision provided by or under the Act, be final. Therefore, Section 64[c] of the Act creates a bar to challenge the order of authority under the Act in a collateral proceedings after four decades. When the writ petitioners have not raised their little finger for more than four decades questioning the order of Assistant Settlement Officer granting ryotwari patta in favour of others, an attempt is made by land grabbers by using the names of the descendants of vendors of the wife of Sri. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer. This Court is unable to find proper documents to accept the version of claimants/writ petitioners as legal heirs of either Tvl.Amavasai or Alavattan or others who have conveyed their kudiwaram right in favour of wife of Sri. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer. It is a surprise to note that before the Director of Survey and Settlement, no petition was filed by any of the legal heirs of vendors of wife of Sri. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer. However, a petition was filed by their Power of Attorney agent in his individual capacity. Shockingly, the Director of Survey and Settlement directed issuance of patta in the name of the Power of Attorney agent of the writ petitioners without assigning proper reasons. The Director of Survey and Settlement has neither understood the provisions of the Act nor considered the application with the proper understanding of common law principles. Every reasoning of the Director of Survey and Settlement exposes his ignorance of law. 36. This Court had occasion to consider the question of limitation for claiming ryotwari patta. G.O.Ms.No.714, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department dated 29.06.1987 empowers the Settlement Officer to entertain the revision petition if it is filed within 30 days after the extended period. Every reasoning of the Director of Survey and Settlement exposes his ignorance of law. 36. This Court had occasion to consider the question of limitation for claiming ryotwari patta. G.O.Ms.No.714, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department dated 29.06.1987 empowers the Settlement Officer to entertain the revision petition if it is filed within 30 days after the extended period. The Assistant Settlement Officer has no power to entertain an application filed under Section 11[a] of the Act beyond the extended period. In this case, the revision petition is filed only in the year 1996 and hence, the Assistant Settlement Officer has not only rejected the revision petition on merits but also on the ground that such revision petition cannot be entertained after 40 years of the order granting ryotwari patta under Section 12 of the Act in favour of landholder. The appeal was rightly dismissed by the Assistant Settlement Officer as the same was not within the time prescribed for filing an appeal or revision. However, the Director of Survey and Settlement observed that the Settlement Officer is empowered to condone the delay beyond the period of 30 days as per the amended rules in terms of G.O.Ms.No.714 dated 29.06.1987. This itself is wrong. 37. This Court in several decisions has considered the scope of G.O.ms.No.714 dated 29.06.1987. The cut off date for applying patta was not extended beyond 20.08.1987. The limitation cannot be extended beyond the period of 30 days from the date of publication of the Government Order. Considering this aspect, a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 19.08.2021 in WA.No.739/2019 in the case of B. Udhayan and Others Vs. Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5 and Others, has held as follows:- 5. Even though there is no reasoning or finding given by the learned Single Judge, it is evident from G.O.Ms.No.714, dated 29.06.1987 under Section 11[a] of the Act, the cut off date for applying rytowari patta was fixed as 20.08.1987. Once the cut-off date has been fixed, the appellants have got no right to apply for Ryotwari Patta that too on 04.12.1995 almost after a decade. In the name of condone delay, a petition has been filed and the 2nd respondent is said to have entertained the application regarding which the 2nd respondent lacks power. Once the cut-off date has been fixed, the appellants have got no right to apply for Ryotwari Patta that too on 04.12.1995 almost after a decade. In the name of condone delay, a petition has been filed and the 2nd respondent is said to have entertained the application regarding which the 2nd respondent lacks power. The appellants has got neither locus standi to file application for grant of ryotwari patta beyond 20.08.1987 not the authorities have power or jurisdiction to receive the application and grant Ryotwari patta beyond G.O.Ms.No.714, dated 29.06.1987. 38. It is stated before this Court by the official respondents that the time prescribed for independent application was not extended and therefore, the application before the Assistant Settlement Officer is time barred. Further, the appeal before the Assistant Settlement Officer was not filed within the period of limitation prescribed in the statute. Nevertheless, the Director of Survey and Settlement proceeded to entertain an application which was filed before him in the year 1996. After the order of Settlement Officer dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation, the Director of Survey and Settlement cancelled the ryotwari patta granted in favour of landholder in 1952. The officer who passed the order dated 05.07.1999 is either incompetent or corrupt to pass such an order ignoring the provisions of the Act and without considering the admitted facts and the records. The Director of Survey and Settlement entertained several doubts without any document or evidence let in before him to justify a claim after a period of four and half decades. [C] Whether the Director of Survey and Settlement has suo motu power to revise the order of Settlement Officer in view of Section 5[2] of Act 26 of 1948:- 39. This Court has already observed that Section 5[2] of the Act only confers suo motu power to the Director to cancel or revise any of the orders, acts or proceedings of the Settlement Officer other than in respect of which an appeal lies to the Tribunal. In the present case, it is admitted that the Assistant Settlement Officer has passed the order on 31.07.1952, granting ryotwari patta in favour of Sri. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer under Sections 12[a][i] and 12[b][ii] of the Act. Since the character of properties held by Sri. In the present case, it is admitted that the Assistant Settlement Officer has passed the order on 31.07.1952, granting ryotwari patta in favour of Sri. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer under Sections 12[a][i] and 12[b][ii] of the Act. Since the character of properties held by Sri. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer was different, the Assistant Settlement Officer has recognised the rights of a landholder to get ryotwari patta for his private lands under Section 12[a][i] and as landholder purchasing kudiwaram right from the ryots to get patta under Section 12[b][ii] of the Act. Anyone aggrieved by the order granting ryotwari patta in favour of landholder under Section 12 of the Act can file appeal before the Tribunal within two months from the date of order. Section 15 provides for allowing further time exceeding six months for filing any appeal in terms of Section 15[2][a] of the Act. As per Section 15[2][b], the decision of the Tribunal on any appeal shall be final and not liable to be questioned in any Court of law. In the present case, no appeal is filed. Therefore, by virtue of Section 64[c] of the Act, the order passed by the authority under the Act is final. Therefore, the order of the Director of Survey and Settlement is without jurisdiction and wholly illegal as rightly held by the Commissioner of Land Administration by the subsequent order dated 14.05.2001. [D] Whether the reasons assigned by the Director of Survey and Settlement can be accepted for setting aside the order granting ryotwari patta after 45 years:- 40. As it was rightly pointed out by the Commissioner of Land Administration, the Director of Survey and Settlement in his order dated 05.07.1999, has presumed so many things without specific pleadings or documents. From the facts stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition or in the petitions before the Director of Survey and Settlement, this Court is unable to gather a specific case challenging the order of Assistant Settlement Officer granting ryotwari patta in favour of Mr. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer in the year 1952. The Director of Survey and Settlement has erroneously entertained the application as one under 11[a] of the Act without any supporting documents or revenue records. When the prayer of the writ petitioners before the Director of Survey and Settlement is to cancel ryotwari patta already granted in favour of Mr. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer in the year 1952. The Director of Survey and Settlement has erroneously entertained the application as one under 11[a] of the Act without any supporting documents or revenue records. When the prayer of the writ petitioners before the Director of Survey and Settlement is to cancel ryotwari patta already granted in favour of Mr. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer, the application cannot be considered as one under Section 11[a] of the Act. The Assistant Settlement Officer while granting patta in favour of Sri. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer has referred to several facts supported by documents. The five Sale Deeds produced before this Court and relied upon by the respondents would show that Tvl.Amavasai and Alavattan along with their family members have sold their kudiwaram right in favour of Tmt.Kalpagammal, wife of Sri. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer. The genuineness and validity of the Sale Deeds are not in issue. In such circumstances, it is expected from the Director of Survey and Settlement to scrutinse the documents and consider how the writ petitioners who claim to be the legal heirs of Tvl.Amavasai and Alavattan could lay a claim in respect of the properties conveyed by their predecessors-in-interest under several Sale Deeds. No effort was taken by the Director of Survey and Settlement to consider whether the legal heirs of Tvl.Amavasai and Alavattan had any other land in their possession apart from what was conveyed by their predecessors-in-title between 1929 and 1931. Instead, the Director of Survey and Settlement examined the rights of M/s.Krishna Tiles Potteries [Madras] Private Limited and the subsequent transferees who are entitled to step into the shoes of Sri. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer who got ryotwari patta under Section 12 of the Act 26/1948. When nobody questioned the entitlement of Sri. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer by way of appeal and it was just stated that patta was wrongly given in 1952 the assumption of the Director of Survey and Settlement that no patta was granted in respect of the lands for which patta is now claimed by Mr. B. Balakrishnan as Power of Attorney Agent of legal heirs of Tvl.Amavasai and Alavattan is perverse. B. Balakrishnan as Power of Attorney Agent of legal heirs of Tvl.Amavasai and Alavattan is perverse. When no document questioning right, title, possession, enjoyment and character of land is filed by the writ petitioners before the Director of Survey and Settlement, the Director of Survey and Settlement has made a few observations erroneously to the effect that there are serious lapses during settlement under Act 26 of 1948. It is unfortunate to notice that the Director of Survey and Settlement who granted patta in favour of Power of Attorney holder without assigning reasons, has questioned the regularity of the order of Assistant Settlement Officer who has assigned reasons for granting ryotwari patta during settlement in 1952. 41. Some of the irregularities pointed out by the Director of Survey and Settlement are irrelevant when we consider the same in the light of admitted facts. Referring to a Settlement Deed vide document No.1009/1944, it is observed by the Director of Survey and Settlement that patta cannot be given to Sri. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer when there was a Settlement Deed in 1944. Since the property has been settled in favour of the other legal heirs of Sri. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer, it is observed that the properties have been included in the holding of Sri. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer contrary to law. It is seen that the sons of Sri. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer have admitted before the Assistant Settlement Officer that it is their father who had acquired kudiwaram right. The Court cannot suspect the events recorded in 1952 to favour some third parties who are not claiming under parties to the proceedings before Assistant Settlement Officer in 1952. The writ petitioners have no locus standi to question the validity of transactions between Sri. A.K. Ranganatha Iyer and his sons. 42. From the reading of every paragraph of the order, this Court gets only an impression that the findings of the Director of Survey and Settlement are perverse and every conclusion is based on presumptions and conjectures without reference to any documents which are admitted. It is seen that the Director of Survey and Settlement has doubted every sentence that is found in the order of Assistant Settlement Officer dated 31.07.1952, but did not bother to consider lack of pleadings and materials to support the case of writ petitioners. It is seen that the Director of Survey and Settlement has doubted every sentence that is found in the order of Assistant Settlement Officer dated 31.07.1952, but did not bother to consider lack of pleadings and materials to support the case of writ petitioners. [E] Whether the order of the Commissioner of Land Administration impugned in the writ petitions, is valid? 43. The Commissioner of Land Administration in his order impugned, has referred to every finding of the Director of Survey and Settlement and found that the findings are not only perverse but also without jurisdiction. This Court finds not even a scrap of paper in the big typed set filed by the appellants to support their case. Every document relied upon by the Director of Survey and Settlement is only to misdirect himself. The Commissioner of Land Administration has found that the predecessors-in-interest of the appellants were not in possession of the suit lands as on the date of settlement proceedings and that the predecessors-in-interest of the appellants who have sold their kudiwaram rights long back cannot be considered as eligible to make a rival claim for grant of ryotwari patta under Act 26 of 1948. 44. The writ petitioners have come forward with a stale claim after four and half decades. Even assuming that there are some irregularities during settlement, the order passed by the statutory authorities cannot be ignored. The writ petitioners who have failed to challenge the order of Assistant Settlement Officer in his proceedings dated 31.07.1952 cannot make an independent claim ignoring the ryotwari patta granted in favour of the rightful landholder. Even though some of the legal heirs of Tvl.Amavasai and Alavattan filed civil suits, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the contesting respondents that several suits filed by them were dismissed. Though it is true that a Civil Court is competent to decide the question of title irrespective of the order passed by the authorities under Act 26 of 1948, the Act does not permit the Government or any other officer to re-write the order of Assistant Settlement Officer which had become final. As indicated by this Court earlier, the writ petitioners appear to have joined hands with land grabbers. As indicated by this Court earlier, the writ petitioners appear to have joined hands with land grabbers. In the absence of any document to support their claim, this Court has bona fide reason to believe that the writ petitions are not only vexatious litigations but litigations to make the property litiguous for the real owners to enjoy with an oblique motive. 45. Hence, the above Writ Appeals are dismissed with an exemplary cost by directing the appellants to pay cost of Rs.25,000/- [Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only] in each Writ appeal to THE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO WEEKS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF A COPY OF THIS ORDER. C.M.P.No.20540 of 2022 and M.P.2 of 2011 are closed, in view of the dismissal of the present Writ Appeals as above.