K.A.Swami, C.J.

This appeal is preferred against the order dated 4.8.1994 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.13194 of 1994. The writ petition has been dismissed, hence the petitioner therein has come up in appeal.

2. In the writ petition, the petitioner sought for quashing the order dated 12.7.1994 bearing No. Na.Ka. A-4/11101/93 passed by the District Revenue Officer, Thiruvannamalai. It may be pointed out here that Na.Ka.A-4/11101/93 was an appeal filed against the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Thiruvannamalai, on 20.1.1993 granting patta of the land in question in favour of the petitioner/ appellant under the Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue.

2.1. The District Revenue Officer has allowed the appeal and rejected the petition filed by the petitioner/ appellant for granting patta in his name. He has held that the land was an ancestral property and the alleged sale deed, claimed to have been executed on 19.6.1971 by Meenakshi Ammal, mother of the 3rd respondent, was an unregistered deed and it did not convey any title. Therefore, he has set aside the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer and rejected the petition filed by the petitioner for grant of patta.

3. No provision is brought to our notice in the Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue taking away the jurisdiction of the civil court to adjudicate upon the question of title relating to immovable property. Revenue Officers in a patta proceedings may express their views on the question of title, but such expression of opinion or decision is not conclusive and it is only intended to support their decision for granting patta. Ultimately, it is the civil court which has to adjudicate the question as to whether the person claiming patta is the title-holder of the land. Even if the revenue authorities decide the question of title, that will not in any way affect the jurisdiction of the civil court, which has to decide the question without reference to the decision of the revenue authorities.

4. Now the question for consideration is, having regard to the fact that the District Revenue Officer has expressed his opinion on the question of title whether the order under question should be interfered with. It may be pointed out here that in a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution the question of title regarding immovable property cannot properly be gone into, because a mass of evidence may be required for adjudicating the question of title. Even if we are to interfere with the order under appeal, it is the other party, who has to go to a civil court and establish title. As far as the exercise of jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution is concerned, it does not matter to it whether A party goes to civil court or B party. Therefore, we are of the view that the question of title has to be decided by the civil court, without reference to the order under question. Hence, we decline to interfere with the order challenged in the writ petition. However, we make it clear that in the event a suit for declaration of title and for appropriate consequential relief is filed, the civil court shall decide such a suit, without reference to the findings recorded by respondents 1 and 2 in the impugned orders, but only on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced by them before it. We also make it clear that any opinion expressed by the learned single Judge, contrary to what we have stated above, shall also stand modified accordingly. With these observations, the writ appeal is dismissed. Consequently, C.M.P.No.15872 of 1994 filed along with the appeal is also dismissed.