JUDGMENT : [D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.] [Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order, dated 20.07.2022 in W.P.No.14536 of 2017.] 1. This Writ Appeal is filed against the Order of the learned Single Judge, dated 20.07.2022 in W.P.No.14536 of 2017, in and by which, the Writ Petition, filed by the appellant herein challenging the order of the first respondent, dated 04.12.2016 and consequently, to direct the fourth respondent to carry out the corrections as directed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Dharapuram and re-issue the patta in terms of the order, dated 28.03.2001, was dismissed by partly confirming the order of the first respondent impugned in the Writ Petition and with a further direction to the respondents 2 to 4 to maintain the entry in the patta holding the name of the fifth respondent/temple as the holder of the patta as was done pursuant to the re-survey and re-settlement proceedings. 2. Ms.Chamundi Bose, learned Counsel for the appellant, taking this Court through the order of the learned Single Judge, would submit that the Assistant Settlement Officer, by his proceedings, dated 28.03.2001, had duly and rightly granted patta in the name of the appellant's husband, who was entitled to. However, the same was erroneously set aside and cancelled by the order of the first respondent namely, the Additional Chief Secretary-cum-Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai, dated 04.12.2016. Even though the said order, which is impugned in the Writ Petition, is wholly untenable, in any event, vide paragraph No.7 of the order, while setting aside the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, the matter was remanded back to the Settlement Officer for a fresh enquiry. The learned Judge ought not to have set aside the said direction in the absence of any challenge with regard to the same on behalf of the fifth respondent/temple. Therefore, she would submit that even though it is only the appellant who had challenged the said order, dated 04.12.2016, now, the appellant is ready to go before the Settlement Officer for enquiry as directed by the first respondent and therefore, would pray that to that extent the order of the learned Single Judge requires interference and modification by this Court. 3. 3. Per contra, Mr.R.Bharanidaran, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the fifth respondent temple would submit that a perusal of the original order of the Settlement Tahsildar-IV, Gobichettipalayam, dated 26.08.1968, clearly reads that the case would fall under Section 8(2)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, in and by which, it is the institution which is entitled to the Ryotwari patta, which is the temple and the service holders only represent the temple. The Assistant Settlement Officer, even though referred the said order as Reference No.I in his order dated 28.03.2001, totally overlooked the same and ordered issuance of patta personally in the name of the service holder. The appellant and her family do not provide any service whatsoever and therefore, there is absolutely no right, title or interest at present for them in the inam land, for which, the temple has been granted patta by the Settlement Officer as early as in the year 1968 and thus, the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer was absolutely perverse and unjustified. The temple took up the issue further and while rightly setting aside the order, the first respondent had unnecessarily remanded the matter back to the Settlement Officer for a fresh consideration. When the proceedings were conducted in the presence of the temple as well as the service holders and an order has been passed as early as in the year 1968 and the same having become final, absolutely, no purpose would be served by second enquiry by the Settlement Officer. 4. Mr. Bharanidharan, would further submit that the temple cannot now be ordered to defend its title at this distant point of time after more than 54 years of grant of patta and therefore, only after considering the said aspects, the learned Single Judge had passed the above order which does not call for any interference whatsoever. 5. We have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case. Admittedly, the lands in question were inam lands covered under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963. After the Act came into force, the Settlement Officer under the said Act is entitled to conduct an enquiry and confer Ryotwari patta under the said Act. Admittedly, the lands in question were inam lands covered under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963. After the Act came into force, the Settlement Officer under the said Act is entitled to conduct an enquiry and confer Ryotwari patta under the said Act. It can be seen from the order, dated 26.08.1968, that Virundeswarasamy temple, situated in Kurudampalayam village, is shown to be represented by hereditary poojaris namely, R.Saminathan, son of Rathnasabapathy Mudaliar, Kurudampalayam village and Subramania Mudaliyar, son of Shanmuga Mudaliar, Vadamadurai village. In column No.5 of the said order, while it records the names of the claimants as R.Saminathan and Subramania Mudaliyar, ultimately in the schedule while recording the names of the persons to whom the Ryotwari patta is allowed, it is the name of the temple which is entered as the patta holder being represented by the two claimants. Therefore, the issue is no longer res integra. If the appellant's husband Saminathan or the other claimant is aggrieved by the same, he ought to have agitated against the said order, dated 28.06.1968. On the other hand, he allowed the said order to become final. After thirty three years, in the year 2001, the Assistant Settlement Officer, absolutely without any reason whatsoever, completely overlooked the said order and by an order, dated 28.03.2001, ordered the correction of patta in the name of the appellant's husband by erroneously holding that the name of the temple was inserted only during re-survey. 6. In that view of the matter, while the first respondent had rightly interfered in the issue, there was absolutely no occasion to provide one more opportunity for the appellant before the Settlement Officer and therefore, the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant herein, had rightly issued the consequential direction to maintain the patta in the name of the fifth respondent/temple itself and there are no merits in the prayer of the appellant to remand the matter back once again for an enquiry. We, therefore, find no error whatsoever in the order of the learned Single Judge. 7. In the result, this Writ Appeal is without any merits and as such, is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.