(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) BY consent the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
(3.) SOME of the facts which are necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: It appears that the petitioners especially the first petitioner filed an application earlier before the Tahsildar for grant of patta in the year 1989 in respect of the land comprised in Survey Nos. 13/2, 2/9, 10/3, 19/1a, 19/1b, 19/1c, 14, 11, 15 and 3/3 of Suriyur Village, Kulathur Taluk, Pattukottai District for an extent of 16. 71. 5 hectares. The 4th respondent who claims to be in possession under sale agreement from the predecessors-in-title appears to have filed an objection before the Tahsildar at that time and after hearing both parties, the Tahsildar has rejected the claim of the petitioners on 15. 5. 1989. It appears that as against the said order of the Tahsildar dated 15. 5. 1989 the petitioners have filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer which stood allowed on 29. 6. 1990 thereby granted patta in favour of the petitioners. On a revision filed by the 4th respondent, the District Revenue Officer, the second respondent by order dated 17. 9. 1990 has set aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 29. 6. 1990 reverting back to the earlier order of the Tahsildar rejecting the claim of the petitioners. It is the case of the respondents that as against the order of the District Revenue Officer dated 17. 9. 1990 no further appeal has been preferred and the same has become final. Without disclosing the said final orders, it appears that the petitioners in 2003 filed another application before the Tahsildar, the third respondent for issuance of patta. That application came to be dismissed by the Tahsildar on 1. 7. 2003 by taking note of the earlier proceedings stated above, however, directed the petitioners to approach the Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Administration for redressal of her grievance since the earlier order of the District Revenue Officer dated 17. 9. 1990 can only be agitated before the Commissioner by way of appeal. In spite of such direction given by the Tahsildar on 1. 7. 2003 without disclosing the order of the Tahsildar it appears that the petitioners have filed an application before the first respondent on 1. 12. 2003. The first respondent-Commissioner has rejected the application on the ground that the suit filed by the petitioner in O. S. No. 57/95 has been dismissed for the purpose of issuance of patta on 24. 2. 1997. Therefore, the remedy of the petitioners is to approach the Civil Court to get suitable relief.