The main legal point established in the judgment is that a petitioner must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant act before seeking relief through a Writ of Mandamus.

1. The Petitioner has preferred the instant Writ of Mandamus praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing Respondents 1 to 3 herein to cancel the patta issued in favour of the 4th and 5th Respondent's father and consequently to issue patta in his favour for an extent of 5 cents in Survey No.30/6 situated at Kodithimmanapalli Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District, within the time to be stipulated by this Court based on the representation dated 12.09.2011.

2. According to the Petitioner, the land measuring an extent of 10 cents comprised in S.No.30/6 situated at Kodithimmanapalli Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District, was originally belonged to his father Varadappa, as evidenced by Village 'A' Register Extract issued in the year 1960. His father was in possession and enjoyment of the said land till his death. His father Varadappa sold an extent of 5 cents out of 10 cents in S.No.30/6 to one Kullamuniappa through a registered sale deed dated 25.06.1971 [bearing document No.1641/1971] in the office of the Sub Registrar, Hosur. His father retained the balance 5 cents of land with him. However, in the UDR Scheme patta was wrongly issued in favour of the aforesaid Kullamuniappa, measuring an extent of 10 cents in S.No.30/6 instead of 5 cents. As a matter of fact, the patta was issued in favour of his father for the entire extent of 10 cents in respect S.No.30/6 [vide patta No.54] on earlier occasion.

3. In the month of August, 2011, the Petitioner approached the Nationalised Banks and Financial Institutions for availing loan with a view to develop the said land of 5 cents by putting up a construction. But shock and surprise, he came to know that the said fact of wrong issue of patta in favour of the said Kullamuniappa and the bank officials had instructed him to obtain a computerised patta in respect of 5 cents in Survey No.30/6 in his name otherwise the loan application would not be processed any further.

4. The plea of the Petitioner is that he sent a representation dated 12.09.2011 to the Respondents 1 to 3 by RPAD seeking to cancel the wrong patta issued in favour of Kullamuniappa for an extent of 10 cents in S.No.30/6 and issue a fresh patta in his favour for an extent of 5 cents in S.No.30/6, but they had not taken any action so far.

5. Per contra, it is the submission of the Learned Additional Government Pleader for Respondents 1 to 3 that the Petitioner has to approach the competent Revenue Authorities and it is for the concerned Authority/Authorities under the Act to deal with the representation dated 12.09.2011 of the Petitioner in terms of ingredients of Tamil Nadu Patta Pass-Book Act, 1983 and the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass-Book Rules, 1987 made thereunder. In the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3 is that the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner prima facie not maintainable in law.

6. However, the Learned Counsel for the Fourth and Fifth Respondents contends that it is false on the part of the Petitioner to allege that the UDR patta was wrongly given to his father Kullamuniappa to an extent of 10 cents of land and in fact, the patta was rightly granted for 10 cents of land in the name of Kulla Muniappa and further, without waiting for the concerned authorities to pass an order on his alleged representation dated 12.09.2011, the Petitioner in a pre-matured fashion has approached this Court by filing the present Writ of Mandamus, which is not maintainable ex facie in the eye of law.

7. This Court had heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the learned Additional Government Pleader for Respondents 1 to 3 and the Learned Counsel for the Respondents 4 and 5.

8. At this juncture, on perusal of the contents of the representation of the Petitioner dated 12.09.2011, this Court latently and patently indicates that the Petitioner has addressed the Respondents 1 to 3 claiminginter alia that the patta wrongly issued in respect of S.No.30/6 to an extent of 5 cents and to be cancel