S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

The Writ Petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to remove the encroachment alleged to have been put up by the fourth respondent, comprised in S.Nos.87/1, 89/1, 90, 92, an extent of 6.59 acres, 1.36 acres, 5.16 acres and 20.00 acres, which are described as grazing field and the lands comprised in S.Nos.80, 81 and 113, an extent of 4.40 acres,

3.69 acres and 3.16 acres, which are described as water catchment area and the Vellure Lake situated in S.No.112 in an extent of 73.68 acres in A Register.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of representation of the petitioner, no action has been taken by the authorities.

3. In the matters of removal of unauthorized construction(s)/encroachment, similar case fell for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of "R. Munuswamy vs. The District Collector, Vellore and 8 others", in Writ Petition No.20494 of 2008, wherein the Division Bench, by order dated 28. 2008, held as follows:

"23. In view of such consistent view of the Supreme Court, the exercise of writ jurisdiction for removal of encroachment or obstruction on public land, especially when a specific efficacious remedy for the same has been provided under Sections 133 to 143 of the Code, in our judgment, would be both inappropriate and improper."

4. In the present case, as we find that the petitioner and other villagers concerned, have already sent a representation dated 20.8.2008 to the second respondent-District Collector, Kancheepuram, with a copy marked to the first respondent-Chief Secretary to the Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, and as the matter is pending consideration by the authorities, we are not inclined to give any findings on merits.

5. The petitioner maypursue the said representation dated 20.8.2008 before the first and second respondents, who may decide the same, on merits, and in accordance with law, after due notice to the concerned parties. It is also open for the petitioner to take other steps before appropriate forum, in accordance with law.

6. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed.