10. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the petitioner company has approached this Court earlier wherein appropriate directions were issued by this Court and as per the counter affidavit of the respondents; it is evident that the said process of de-notifying the land alienated to the petitioner company is already undertaken by the State. The total extent of land sold to the petitioner company under due permission of the Government, cannot any more be treated as the land belonging to Devasthanam. However, without noticing Section 22-A of the Registration Act, then existing, the aforesaid notification appears to have been issued. Para 10 of the counter affidavit of the Devasthanam also points out that only part of the land is notified and as such, appropriate steps are required to be taken to de-notify the land covered by the sale in favour of the petitioner company and for that purpose, the Government has called for, from the Commissioner of Endowments, a detailed report including survey and demarcation of land and field measurement books with regard to the survey number where discrepancy is found, as set out in the plan appended to the said counter affidavit. Hence, at this stage, without resolving the said discrepancy on ground on the basis of survey, sub-division and field measurement, the Mandamus as sought for cannot be issued.
