ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief : “To issue a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for the entire records pertaining to the order of the 2 nd respondent dated 09-10-2024 made in D.Dis.B3 E-63095/2023, quash the same as illegal and further to direct the 2 nd respondent to change the revenue records from the name of Sadapunar Training Institute to the names of the petitioners and their predecessors vendor to the properties situated in S.No.351/2A to an extent of 1.80 Acres in Chinnasalem South Village Account, Chinnasalem Taluk, Kallakurichi District and further to direct the 4 th respondent to survey and sub divide the aforesaid land and to grant patta in the name of the petitioners and their successors based upon their respective title to the properties mentioned above. 2. The case of the petitioners is that the properties situate in Survey No.351/2 measuring an extent of 1.84 acres in Chinnasalem South Village Account,Chinnasalem Taluk, Kallakurichi District belonged to one Ponngavanammal @ Sivabakkiammal. The said Sivabakkiammal had purchased the above mentioned property under a Sale Deed dated 25.02.1951 from one Muthusami and brothers, registered as Document No.360 of 1951. After the purchase, she had also got a patta in her name in Patta No.656 in respect of the said property. Thereafter, she had converted the property into house plots and sold it to various persons between 1965 and 1966. 3. The property in Survey No.351/2 had been subdivided as Survey No.351/2A measuring an extent of 1.80 acres and S.No.351/2B measuring an extent of 4 cents. The said Sivabakkiammal had sold 1.80 acres in S.No.351/2A to various persons and retained the 4 cents in S.No.351/2B for herself. The Revenue Divisional Officer 's order dated 21.09.1967 in A1/35136/66 would also indicate that the total extent of the property is 1 acre 84 cents. The patta in respect of S.No.351/2B measuring an extent of 4 cents stood in the name of Sivabakkiammal whereas the patta of other properties which had been sold to various persons was changed as Sadapunar Training Institute (Government Poromboke) on 21.06.1967, which appears to be a mistake on the part of the Government since the property in question was patta land and patta in respect of this extent also stood in the name of Sivabakkiammal. Thereafter on 14.09.1974, 19 of the owners who had purchased the lands, made a representation to the District Collector and the Revenue Divisional Officer to cancel the patta which stood in the name of the Government and issue patta in their names. The petitioner would submit that the Revenue Inspector had conducted an enquiry and submitted a report to the 4 th respondent in which she has stated that the petitioners and their predecessor-in-title are in occupation and possession of the property and therefore, had recommended that the patta be changed in the name of the original owner, Sivabakkiammal. 4. The petitioners would further submit that prior to the UDR scheme, an extent of 4.96 cent in S.No.351/1 stood in the name of one Nataraja Iyer and 3 others. Subsequent to the purchase by Sivabakkiammal, she had got the revenue records mutated in her name to an extent of 1.84 acres. Since the revenue authorities had recommended that the patta be changed in the name of the petitioners and taking into account the possession of the property by the petitioners, the 4 th respondent had passed an order dated 13.08.2021 recommending that the patta be changed in the name of Sivabakkiammal. Moreover, the 2 nd respondent by his proceedings dated 31.10.2022 had stated that there is no institute named “Sadapunar Training Institute” in the said property and directed the petitioners to obtain the orders from this Court in this regard. Despite these recommendations and the representations of the petitioners, the revenue authorities have not taken any steps to change the patta. Therefore, the petitioners had filed W.P.No.33983 of 2022 for a mandamus directing the 4 th respondent to survey and subdivide the properties situated in Survey No.351/2A measuring an extent of 1.80 acres and to grant patta in the name of the petitioners and their successors on the basis of their title. This writ petition was disposed of by order dated 20.12.2022 with directions. The petitioner had thereafter sought information under the Right to Information Act as to the steps taken by the 4 th respondent based on the orders passed in W.P.No.33983 of 2022. A reply had been received from the 4 th respondent on 30.07.2024 intimating that he had recommended for the subdivision and grant of patta to the petitioners vide his letter dated 20.09.2023. A reply had been received from the 4 th respondent on 30.07.2024 intimating that he had recommended for the subdivision and grant of patta to the petitioners vide his letter dated 20.09.2023. Despite the said recommendation, the 2 nd respondent has once again reiterated his findings in his earlier order dated 31.10.2022 which was the subject matter of W.P.No.33983 of 2022. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the 4 th respondent, by his communication dated 13.08.2021 to the 3 rd respondent, had stated that the successors of Ponngavanammal @ Sivabakkiammal are in possession of the properties for over 56 years from the date of their purchase. The 4 th respondent had further categorically stated that there was no institute called "Sadapunar Training Institute" in the said property. Thereafter, he had recommended that the name of the institute be removed and the patta be granted in the name of Ponngavanammal @ Sivabakkiammal. The very same recommendation had been given by the 3 rd respondent to the 2 nd respondent vide his proceedings dated 04.04.2022. Though the said recommendations was accepted by the 2 nd respondent, in the earlier order dated 31.10.2022, however he had stated that the petitioners have to approach the Civil Court. This order was the subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.33983 of 2022 wherein this Court had allowed the same directing the 4 th respondent to consider the representations of the petitioners while taking into account the findings of the 2 nd respondent Despite the same, the impugned order has been passed. Therefore, he would submit that the impugned order suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and has to be set aside. 6. No counter has been filed by the respondents. However, a communication dated 25.01.2025 addressed by the Revenue Tahsildar, Chinnasalem to the learned Government Pleader has been produced before this Court, wherein he has stated as follows: Therefore, it is the contention that since the files are not available, they are only forwarding the entries in the “A” Register, Chitta and Adangal prior to UDR and post UDR which describe the property. 7. Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the materials available on record. 8. 7. Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the materials available on record. 8. The 4 th respondent, in his letter to the 3 rd respondent, had opined as follows: The 3 rd respondent, in turn, had made the following recommendations to the 2 nd respondent under the communication dated 04.04.2022 wherein the 3 rd respondent has stated as follows: The 2 nd respondent in his earlier impugned order dated 31.10.2022 had accepted the recommendations but has however proceeded to direct the parties to approach the civil court. The order would read as follows: This Court had disposed of W.P.No.33983 of 2022 and one of the directions would read as follows: “It is made clear that while examining the said issue for survey of the land and for issuance of individual patta, the fourth respondent shall take into account the findings given by the second respondent through his proceedings dated 31.10.2022 as an aid and advice from the District Revenue Officer” In fact in paragraph No.9, the learned Judge has observed as follows: “9. As has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that insofar as the plea of the petitioners to survey the land and to issue patta individually to these petitioners is concerned, that can very well be considered and decided by the fourth respondent Tahsildar and in this regard, the finding given by the District Revenue Officer dated 31.10.2022 as referred to above can be taker as an aid, therefore, at this juncture there was no need to relegate the parties i.e., petitioners to any Court of Law to initiate any litigatior as definitely there could be no such issue available for resolvement.” Despite these directions, the 2 nd respondent has now adopted a totally different stand stating that the petitioners' request would not come under RSO 31(8) and that they can seek remedy only under RSO 21 and that no case has been made to rectify the recording in UDR. Such a stand would clearly show the absolute non-application of mind on the part of the respondents. The authorities below, after conducting an inspection, have opined that since there was no such institute as "Sadapunar Training Institute" in the property and as possession was originally with Sivabakkiammal and which possession had thereafter continued with the petitioners, the entry has to be removed. The authorities below, after conducting an inspection, have opined that since there was no such institute as "Sadapunar Training Institute" in the property and as possession was originally with Sivabakkiammal and which possession had thereafter continued with the petitioners, the entry has to be removed. Even the communication dated 25.01.2025 clearly shows that prior to the UDR, the name of Sivabakkiammal and others were shown in the “A” register and the name of the institute has been included thereafter. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained and accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to remove the name of the institute “Sadapunar Training Institute” and restore the patta in the name of the original owner, Sivabakkiammal as recommended by the respondents 3 and 4 within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.