The judgment establishes the principle that government officials must act in accordance with the law, and any exercise of power must not violate the rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.

1. The petitioner has approached this court, with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari, to quash the order dated 05.07.2010, of the 3rd respondent/District Revenue Officer, in ordering the Tahsildar 4th respondent to change the patta entries standing in the name of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is the owner of land measuring 3.32 acres comprised in S.No.16/2 Hectares 1.34.5, kist 1.86, in pursuance to purchase vide registered sale deed dated 14.08.2000. Since the date of purchase, petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property.

3. On the application moved by the petitioner, the Tahsildar granted patta No.i 51 in favour of the petitioner for the Fasili 1418.

4. The Case of the petitioner is that some persons tried to interfere in his peaceful possession by claiming it to be cart track. The Petitioner filed O.S.No.236/2010, in the District Munsif Court, Tirupattur for declaration of title and injunction restraining the respondents, from tresspassing into the property, by claiming to be cart road.

5. The State filed written statement in the suit, admitting the averments in the plaint. It was admitted, that there is an alternate path way. A positive stand was also taken in the written statement, that in case any cart road is to be carved out of the area under the ownership of the petitioner, then appropriate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act would be taken.

6. One Thiru A.S. Alauddin filed W.P.No.86 of 2001, by way of Public Interest Litigation for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the Collector to complete the work of laying a tar road on the cart track in S.No.16/2 and others of Molegaram Patti.

7. The petitioner through registered owner was not made party to the writ petition.

8. The writ petition was disposed of by passing the following order:

"Without going into the merit of the contention of the petition, we are of the view that no mandamus can be issued for the relief sought by the writ petitioner. However we dispose the writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to approach the respondent by filing a suitable representation. It goes without saying that if such representation is filed, the respondents shall do the needful, if there is impediment in the matter of completion of work of laying the tar road in the aforesaid land. There shall be no order as to costs."

Inspiteof the fact no decisions for laying the road were given by this court, the said Thiru Alauddin filed representation by projecting that the land in S.No.16/2 should be used as a cart track, in view of the directions by this court.

9. It was on application under the Right to Information Act, that the petitioner was supplied with the impugned order, vide which the directions have been issued by the District Revenue Officer, Vellore, to change the entries in patta, by showing the property including the property earlier registered in the name of the petitioner as cart-track.

10. The petitioner, has approached this court, for quashing the impugned order, on the ground that it is totally without jurisdiction, as the 3rd respondent has no jurisdiction to issue directions, to the Tahsildar to change the entries in the patta, without following due process of law as laid down under the Tamilnadu Patta Pass Book Act.

11. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that though in the pending the civil suit for the declaration of ownership of the petitioner with regard to disputed property, is admitted, still no notice was issued to the petitioner while issuing general direction, by way of the impugned order.

12. Learned counsel for the State opposed, the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the impugned order, as only directions have been issued to the Tahsildar, to carry out the correction in the Revenue records by showing land in S.No.16/2 to be cart track land, therefore petitioner cannot have any grievance