ORDER : 1. The petitioner challenges the order of the first respondent in Na.Ka.Aa6/20942/2015 dated 10.08.2016, confirming the order passed by the second respondent in Mu.Mu.A7-2075-2014 dated 22.07.2015. 2. I have heard Mrs.AL.Gandhimathi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M.Lingadurai, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 & 3 and Mr.A.Saravanan, learned counsel for the third respondent. I have also gone through the records. 3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner Mrs.AL.Gandhimathi, would submit that the land comprised in Survey No.149, Sooriyur Village, which had been classified as “Government Poramboke” in 1983, was assigned to six persons, namely, Varadarajan, Paramasivam, S/o.Ramasamy, Pappu, Ponnusamy, Kandasamy and Paramasivam S/o.Periyasamy. It is further contended that the patta was also issued in the names of the assignees, each of them being entitled to 3 Acres in the total extent of 18 Acres. The writ petitioner, on 06.07.1987 and on 07.07.1987 had power of attorney executed for consideration from the six assignees and also purchased properties, in Survey No.149/6 under registered sale deed in document No.6208/1987. Patta was issued by the Tahsildar, Trichy, on 03.09.1989 in the name Salaudeen, in respect of Survey No.149/1 to 149/10, based on the said Salaudeen's application dated 01.08.1989. Aggrieved by the said issuance of patta, the writ petitioner and other interested parties preferred an Appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Trichy, challenging the order of the Tahsildar and the order of the Tahsildar dated 03.09.1989 was set aside by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Trichy on 26.12.1989 and the matter was remitted to the Tahsildar for fresh consideration. On enquiry, after remand, the Deputy Tahsildar, Trichy by proceedings, dated 30.01.2015, directed the petitioner's name to be mutated in the patta. 4. Against the order of the Deputy Tahsildar, the third respondent had preferred an appeal before the second respondent. The second respondent, by proceedings dated 22.07.2015 allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the second respondent, the petitioner filed a revision before the District Revenue Officer and on 10.08.2016, the District Revenue Officer has also dismissed the revision. As against which, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the authorities have not understood the claim of the petitioner in a proper prospective and the third respondent has mislead the authority, by placing reliance on the irrelevant documents. As against which, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the authorities have not understood the claim of the petitioner in a proper prospective and the third respondent has mislead the authority, by placing reliance on the irrelevant documents. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit the petitioner never claimed any right under document No.2272/1986 dated 26.05.2015, but only under document 6208/1987. She would further contend that even the sale deed on which the reliance is placed on by the third respondent before the respondents was totally irrelevant to the subject matter in dispute, not only with regard to survey number, but also regarding the parties to the lis. 6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would invite my attention to the original pattas issued to the assignees way back in the year 1974 from whom the petitioner traces title. The learned Senior Counsel would therefore submit that even in the civil proceedings, the competent civil Court found that the said Salaudeen, had no right in the property and the C.M.A.No.39 of 1990 came to be disposed of and against the said Salaudeen. She would therefore pray for the orders impugned being set aside and the writ petition being allowed. 7. The learned counsel for the third respondent would submit that there is absolutely no infirmity in the order of the respondents and rightly, after conducting enquiry and giving opportunity to the parties, the third respondent directed patta to be issued vide the proceedings dated 13.01.2015, after cancelling the patta issued to the petitioner. 8. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side. 9. It is seen from the available documents that survey No.149 has been assigned to six persons and the lands have been subdivided as survey Nos.149/1 to 149/6. Assignment patta was also issued to the six assignees. It is also only from the said assignees that the petitioner has acquired right, title and interest in the subject lands. Patta was also issued in favour of the petitioner way back in April 2015. Questioning the issuance of patta to the petitioner, the third respondent herein approached the second respondent / Revenue Divisional Officer, seeking cancellation of the patta issued to the petitioner. Patta was also issued in favour of the petitioner way back in April 2015. Questioning the issuance of patta to the petitioner, the third respondent herein approached the second respondent / Revenue Divisional Officer, seeking cancellation of the patta issued to the petitioner. After due enquiry, the second respondent held that finding that patta No.697 in respect of survey No. 149/9B and 149/10 were mutated in the name of Abubakkar and Mariyam Beevi and thereafter, the third respondent has mutated his name in patta No.3053, basing claim under a sale deed dated 2272/1986, the second respondent proceeded to order cancellation of patta in the name of the writ petitioner. The said order of the second respondent came to be confirmed in revision by the District Revenue Officer, Trichy, as well. 10. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel Mrs.AL.Gandhimathi, when the revenue authorities ought not to have rendered findings that the documents, on which the petitioner claims, interest were forged or fabricated documents. When the revenue authorities came to the conclusion that there is a dispute with regard to the title and complex facts were involved, the revenue authorities ought to have stayed away from entertaining any applications for mutation of revenue records. As held by the Hon'ble Division Bench in Viswas Footwear Company Ltd. Vs. The District Collector, Kancheepuram, 2011 (5) CTC 94 , the authorities ought to have relegated the third respondent to approach the competent civil Court instead of usurping the powers of the civil Court and rendering findings that the petitioner's documents were forged/fabricated. Such findings cannot be rendered by revenue authorities, that too, without parties undergoing regular trial, to establish their respective contentions. 11. It is relevant to extract the relevant portion of the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench in Viswas 's case, held as follows: “19. Nevertheless, the core question involved in the writ petition is as to whether in the given facts and circumstances of the case, it could be entertained in the event patta has been granted in favour of a particular individual. Nevertheless, the core question involved in the writ petition is as to whether in the given facts and circumstances of the case, it could be entertained in the event patta has been granted in favour of a particular individual. On the strength of the title or possession, if any other person makes an application to the Revenue Divisional Officer for cancellation of that patta and in the event both the individuals claim title over the property, the Revenue Divisional Officer cannot adjudicate such disputed questions and accepting the case of the other person, he cannot cancel the patta. The right course to be adopted by the Revenue Divisional Officer in such case is only to refer the applicant who has come before him seeking for cancellation of patta to civil Court, especially when his claim is disputed by the individual who is holding the patta granted by the competent authority. In the event the Revenue Divisional Officer by exceeding his jurisdiction decides the question of title and cancels the patta, certainly the aggrieved person can approach this Court by way of a writ petition on the ground that the Revenue Divisional Officer was not competent to go into the title. The question of alternative remedy is not available to the aggrieved person as for the very same reason the District Collector also cannot go into the disputed question regarding the title or possession, as the case may be, in the event an appeal is filed.” 12. Therefore, when patta admittedly was mutated in the name of the petitioner's vendor and subsequently the petitioner, the proper course of action would have been to relegate the third respondent to approach the competent civil Court instead of revenue authorities rendering findings acting as if they were competent civil Courts. 13. In view of the above, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the third respondent is at liberty to ventilate his grievances before the competent civil Court. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.