ORDER : 1. The petitioner challenges the order of the first respondent, viz., District Revenue Officer, Madurai, dated 03.12.2020. 2. I have heard Mr. P. Balamurugan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.C.Satheesh, learned Government Advocate for the first respondent and Mr. V.R. Shanmuganathan, learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3. I have also gone through the records. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the subject property was standing in the name of the petitioner's father, viz., Veyelumuthu Yogeswarar even from the year 1946 pursuant to the order passed by the then Collector Madurai, in Ni.Mu.No.13087/46 on 30.01.1946. The revenue records including patta, chitta, Adangal have always been in the name of the petitioner's father up to 2006. According to the petitioner on 01.09.2006, the petitioner's father settled the property in the petitioner's favour by document No.6994/2006, and thereafter, the petitioner has mutated revenue records in her name and has been in enjoyment of the subject property. However, the respondents 2 and 3 temple have projected a version as if patta was mutated in the name of the petitioner only in T.R dated 15.10.2018 by the Madurai West Tahsildar and earlier the subject property was only in the name of the third respondent temple. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the petitioner producing all the revenue records right from 1974, including registered settlement deed in favour of the petitioner and the third respondent temple not being able to produce any documents in support of their title and possession, the first respondent, without properly appreciating the documents, has proceeded to passed the impugned order. It is further contended by the petitioner that the first respondent failed to consider that even as early as on 10.05.1974 patta passbook only reflected the petitioner's father's name and not a single document has been placed by the respondent temple to substantiate their claim. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also place reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Vishwas Footwear Company Ltd. Vs. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also place reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Vishwas Footwear Company Ltd. Vs. The District Collector, 2011 (5) CTC 94 and contend that the respondents 2 and 3 will have to approach the competent civil Court to establish their title and the revenue authorities erred in cancelling the patta in the name of the petitioner and directing the name of the temple to be mutated in his place and further directing both the parties to approach the competent civil Court. 5. Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, learned counsel appearing for the temple, namely, respondents 2 and 3, would contend that the dispute which exists in the present matter involves a complex factual matrix which cannot be decided either by the revenue authorities or by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He would further submit that the petitioner has already approached the civil Court and has even suppressed the said factum in the present writ petition. As regards the claim of the respondent temple, the learned counsel would submit that the subject lands were given for performance for service called “Sikaram Kaval” and is duly covered by title deed in T.D.No.394. According to the learned counsel for the respondent temple, Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, even in 1936, proceedings were initiated by the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Melur and the lands were resumed clearly finding that the grant was a Melvaram alone. However, consequently, original suit in O.S.No.2 of 1938 declared that the claim was not only Melvaram but also Kudivaram and subsequently, the temple is entitled to both Varams. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent temple, after the Minor Inam Abolition Act 30/1963, was enacted, the Settlement Tahsildar, after conducting due enquiry, by proceedings dated 01.08.1967 granted a settlement patta in favour of the temple and the temple has leased the said property to various tenants and is collecting rents from the said tenants. 6. The learned counsel would also invite my attention to the proceedings dated 01.08.1967 as well as copy of the resold land copy register of the temple which clearly points to the lands belonging only to the temple. 6. The learned counsel would also invite my attention to the proceedings dated 01.08.1967 as well as copy of the resold land copy register of the temple which clearly points to the lands belonging only to the temple. It is the further case of the respondents temple that even the A register stands in the name of the temple and revenue records including Adangal and FMB also reflect only the temple's name and further kists are being paid in the name of the respondent temple. All these are substantiated, by documents filed by him, along with the typed set of papers. As regards the mutation in favour of the petitioner's father in the computer chitta, it is contended that the same was carried out only on 15.10.2018, without any notice to the respondent temple. Therefore, the temple made a request to the District Collector, Madurai, for cancellation of such wrong entry by sending a letter vide communication dated 04.06.2019. The Commissioner of HR & CE also took up the matter and requested the District Collector to take suitable action. In the enquiry, the writ petitioner filed their objections claiming the lands to have been settled in their favour by her father in the year 2006, placing reliance on patta, revenue records standing in their father's name. 7. According to the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 temple, the documents based on which the petitioner obtained patta were also forged and fabricated documents and in order to substantiate the allegation of forgery, the learned counsel for the respondents / temple, Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, would invite my attention to the letter dated 21.09.1945 issued by the Collector which refers to survey No.169/1 and 169/3. However, at that relevant point of time, there is no subdivision of survey No.169 and only in June 1973, the said survey numbers came to be subdivided for the first time. Further, he would also point out to the fact that the petitioner relies on a patta said to have been granted by the Tahsildar in July - 2011, in patta No.577 in favour of the father of the petitioner. However, the petitioner filed a writ petition in WP(MD)No. 16696 of 2017, seeking patta. All these, according to the respondent temple clearly demonstrate that the petitioner is trying to grab the property of the temple. He would therefore, seek for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. However, the petitioner filed a writ petition in WP(MD)No. 16696 of 2017, seeking patta. All these, according to the respondent temple clearly demonstrate that the petitioner is trying to grab the property of the temple. He would therefore, seek for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. The learned Government Advocate, Mr.C.Satheesh, would submit that the Village concerned, viz. Ponmeni, was a Ryotwari Village and resettlement was introduced for fasli 1328 under the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908 and was completed with the printing of the A register on 12.12.1920. Thereafter, it was handed over to the Revenue Department for maintenance and in view of non performance of services, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Melur, resumed the lands in favour of Meenakshi Amman Temple in the year 1936 and he would adopt the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent temple that the Sub Court held that the temple was entitled to both Melvaram as well as Kudivaram grants. He also affirmed the fact that with the introduction of Act 30/1963, the competent authority held that Meenakshi Amman Temple, represented by Executive Officer alone was entitled Ryotwari patta under Section 8(2)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963. He would further contend that if at all the petitioner is aggrieved, the petitioner or his predecessors ought to have approached the competent Court, challenging the patta issued by the Settlement Tahsildar in favour of the temple. Even thereafter according to Mr.C.Satheesh, learned Government Advocate, when Town Survey Settlement was taken up in 2007, the records are mutated only in the name of Meenakshi Amman Temple Devathanam and patta No.577 has also been issued. He would further contend that there is no power vested in the revenue authorities to revise or alter the patta issued by the Settlement Tahsildar, that too after due enquiry made at the time of final settlement under the Abolition Act. He would therefore pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side. 10. No doubt, the petitioner claims under settlement executed by her father in the year 2006. However, the claim of the petitioner to title to subject lands is only under proceedings in Ni.Mu.No.13087/46 dated 30.01.1946 on the file of the then District Collector, Madurai. 9. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side. 10. No doubt, the petitioner claims under settlement executed by her father in the year 2006. However, the claim of the petitioner to title to subject lands is only under proceedings in Ni.Mu.No.13087/46 dated 30.01.1946 on the file of the then District Collector, Madurai. Apart from the said order of the then Collector, there is no other document evidencing any right, title or interest in favour of the father of the petitioner. According to the respondents, the said proceedings of the then Collector is clearly forged. There is force in the contention of the learned counsel that in 1946, there was no subdivision effected to survey No.169. That being the position, the order of the Collector issued in 1946 could not have mentioned subdivisions 1 and 3 to survey No.169. It is only based on the said order of the Collector that the petitioner's father has managed to mutate the revenue records in his favour. There is no registered document conveying the subject lands in favour of the petitioner's favour, except for the said Collector's order, which clearly appears to be fabricated by the petitioner's father to stake a claim over the property. On the other hand, it is seen from the proceedings of the settlement Tahsildar under the Minor Inams dated 01.08.1967 that enquiry has been conducted under Section 11 of the Madras Minor Inams (Abolitions and Conversion into Ryotwari ) Act, Tamil Nadu Act 30/1963 and the factum of presumption of lands of Revenue Divisional Officer, Melur, 1936 has been referred to while granting both Kudivaram and Melvaram to Meenakshi Sundareswarar Kovil, represented by its Executive Officer. Consequently settlement Tahsildar has held that the temple is entitled to Ryotwari patta. The revenue records that have been produced namely A Register and FMB sketch also evidence the fact that the temple alone has been held to be entitled to the subject lands. Based on the Collector's order, the petitioner's father has proceeded to mutate revenue records, thereby creating parallel and rival title in himself and subsequently in and by registered settlement deed, he has gifted by settlement, the property to this writ petitioner, who has approached this Court challenging the order of the first respondent dated 03.12.2020. 11. Based on the Collector's order, the petitioner's father has proceeded to mutate revenue records, thereby creating parallel and rival title in himself and subsequently in and by registered settlement deed, he has gifted by settlement, the property to this writ petitioner, who has approached this Court challenging the order of the first respondent dated 03.12.2020. 11. I have gone through the order impugned in the present writ petition passed by the District Revenue Officer, Madurai. The District Revenue Officer, has elaborately considered the various documents, which have been relied on by the temple as well as on the side of the writ petitioner after. The first respondent had also found that only in 1983 survey No.169 was subdivided as 169/1, 169/2 and 169/3 and therefore, the document of the year 1946 on which strong reliance is placed on by the writ petitioner itself creates serious doubt with regard to its genuineness. 12. The first respondent has also taken note of the mutation during town survey in the name of the temple and therefore, came to the conclusion that the pattas standing in the name of the petitioner in patta No.577 was erroneous and liable to be cancelled. The first respondent has also found inconsistencies in the claim of the petitioner, especially, when patta was issued to the petitioner in 2011 and in her father's name in the year 1978 when admittedly the petitioner's father was not alive. The first respondent has also found that there is no document to substantiate or justify the mutation in the year 2018 and consequently held that the mutation in the name of the petitioner's father was liable to be cancelled and the patta has to be mutated only in the name of the respondents temple. The first respondent has also given liberty to the aggrieved party, to approach the competent civil Court. The first respondent has passed a well considered order, taking into account all material documents placed before him by both the writ petitioner as well as the respondent temple. 13. Therefore, I do not find any necessity warranting interference with the said order passed by the first respondent. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Vishwas Footwear Company Ltd. Vs. 13. Therefore, I do not find any necessity warranting interference with the said order passed by the first respondent. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Vishwas Footwear Company Ltd. Vs. The District Collector, 2011 (5) CTC 94 , where this Court held that the Revenue Divisional Officer cannot decide title dispute between the parties and can only consider prima facie case as to the entitlement of any person for issuance of patta, I do not find that in the factual present case, the first respondent has exceeded his power or authority and he has rightly gone by the revenue records and also came to a prima facie conclusion that the documents, on which the writ petitioner places reliance on could not have been true or genuine documents. Further, it is not a case where the petitioner was made a strong claim to title over the property excepting for the order of the District Collector, which on the face of it has been found to be a fabricated document. Therefore, I do not find the decisions in Vishwas Footwear's case, coming to the aid of the petitioner. 14. For all the above reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.