JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the second respondent in Proceedings No.Mu.Mu.(A4) 1781/2018 dated 07.02.2019 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and unconstitutional and for consequential orders.) 1. This writ petition has been filed, challenging the Proceedings No.Mu. Mu.(A4) 1781/2018 dated 07.02.2019, issued by the second respondent. 2. The petitioner is a body, representing a community in Mangalampettai Vilage, who is the owner of the property, situated in S.No.105/1, new Survey No.222/12 and 14, Karnathan Road, Mangalampettai Village. They had entered into a Lease Deed, registered as Document No.1562/1979 with the first respondent herein and was also in possession of the property. One Duraiswamy Chettiar and Narayana Chettiar, representing the petitioner, had filed a Suit before the District Munsif Court, Chidambaram in O.S. No.285 of 1973 and by judgment and decree dated 28.02.1974, the subject property in S.No.105/1, which has been renumbered as New Nos.222/12 and 14, was declared in their favour. 3. It is stated by the petitioner that the name of the fifth respondent was incorporated in the patta over the subject properties that belonged to the petitioner herein and he has also consequently executed Settlement Deeds in favour of his children, who are respondents 7 to 9. It is stated that those Settlement Deeds have been challenged before the Civil Courts and the same are pending and the lands in S.Nos.222/12 and 14, belong to the fifth respondent, which were subsequently recorded as ''dispute''. It is also stated that since the subject lands are with the fifth respondent, the classification of the status of the subject lands as ''dispute'' shall be granted to and in favour of the fifth respondent herein. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the registered Lease Deed, which evidences the petitioner''s possession over the property and the subsequent decree of the District Munsif Court, Chidambaram has become final, the second respondent herein ought not to have changed the title over the property in the Patta Pass Book in favour of the fifth respondent herein. 5. 5. Per contra, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 places reliance on the averments in the counter affidavit and submitted that as per the Village account of Mangalampettai, the lands in S.Nos.222/12 and 222/14 are classified as Government Poramboke lands and during the course of enquiry, no objections were raised by anybody and therefore, the petitioner is not the owner of the property in S.No.105/1 and New S.Nos.222/12 and 14. 6. Heard Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel representing for Ms.V.Srimathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for R1 to R4. Though respondents 5, 8 and 9 are represented by counsel, none appears on their behalf. 7. The reasoning adopted by the official respondents in the impugned order as well as the counter affidavit cannot be legally sustainable. When the petitioner was put in possession of the lands to a registered Lease Deed and thereafter when he had sought for declaration of title over the said lands in S.No.105/1 and New Nos.222/12 and 14 and the District Munsif Court, Chidambaram through its judgment and decree dated 28.02.1974 had passed O.S. No.285 of 1973 in favour of the petitioner, the title over those suit properties would automatically be vested with the petitioner only. Incidentally, the suit, filed by Duraiswamy Chettiar and Narayana Chettiar, was on behalf of the petitioner under the people of Arriya Vaisyar of Mangalampettai. 8. In view of the judgment and decree of the Civil Court, the entire reasoning adopted by the respondents in the counter affidavit that the property does not belong to the petitioner cannot be sustained. Consequently, all other changes made in the Patta Pass Book pursuant to the year 1974 insofar as the subject property, needs to be modified and the corresponding entires in favour of the petitioner requires to be made in the Patta Pass Book. 9. In the light of the above observation, the impugned Proceedings No.Mu.Mu.(A4) 1781/2018, dated 07.02.2019, issued by the second respondent is quashed. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the official respondents herein to pass appropriate orders, incorporating the name of the petitioner in the Patta Pass Book, insofar as relates to the subject properties in S.No.105/1 and New Nos.222/12 and 14, Karnathan Road, Mangalampettai Village, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps are closed.