The court emphasized the need for the petitioner to approach the civil court for adjudication of title, ownership, and possession, and highlighted the government's ownership of the land classified as 'Cart Track'.

1. The order passed by the 1st respondent in proceedings dated 04.01.2013, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for grant of Patta is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. The petitioner states that the present writ petition is filed challenging the correctness of the mutation effected by the revenue authorities/respondents 1 to 3, without considering the documents of title pertaining to the ''Nilaviayal Vandipathai'' (Cart Track) running from the village natham poromboke lands to the petitioner's various lands in the adjoining area comprised in S.Nos.188, 191 etc., The petitioner states that even in the absence of document of title which would convey the title from the predecessor of the 4th respondent, mutation in revenue records have occurred at the instance of the third respondent, originally vide order dated 29.05.200 of the proceedings of the third respondent made, whereby the mutation in revenue records with reference to S.Nos.188/4, 188/7 and 207/10 was caused in the name of the Rathinammal, the 4th respondent in Patta Nos.323, 326, 327 and 455 respectively. The 4th respondent vide Sale Deed dated 12.02.1987 registered as Document No.191/87 pruchased land comprised in R.S.Nos.189/1, 189/2 and one-twelth (1/12th) share in well compromised in R.S.No.188/4. The writ petitioner purchased the entire extent of 0.24.0 Hectares of land from Mr.C.Arthanari Gownder in R.S.No.189/1 in the year 1995. His sons immediately have effected mutation in revenue records. The 4th respondent deliberately caused mutation of revenue records only in S.Nos.188/4, 188/7 and 207/10, 189/1 & 188/4, even without any document of title, however, on the strength of Sale Deed 12.02.1987. The petitioner states that the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in proceedings 04.01.2013 is erroneous and contrary to law and the manner in which the rights of the parties have been altered is by way of oral partition. Thereby convey the rights of the predecessor in interest viz., Mr.C.Arthanari Gownder has not been taken note of by the respondents. At the outset, the petitioner states that the documents filed and the grounds raised by the writ petitioner had not been considered while passing the impugned order vide proceedings dated 04.01.2013.

3. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 relying on the counter statement contended that the order passed in WP.No.3793 of 2010 is in no manner relevant with the present case. The present writ petitioner encroached on the Cart Track in R.S.No.188/7 of the Mullampati village by way of putting fence and thereby, the petitioner tried to prevent the right of the 4th respondent and the public to use this cart track. The son of the 4th respondent and other users of this cart track presented a petition before then the Tahsildar, Perundurai who lodged a criminal complain against the petitioner before Kanjikovil Police Station Under Section 431 IPC to block the entrance to and exit of this public pathway against this criminal complaint. The petitioner filed WP.No.3793 of 2010 before this Court which was disposed of with a observation that the ''authorities could not dislodge the petitioner from the possession of the petitioner encroached into the public property. They are at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. Until the respondent authorities are evicting the petitioner in accordance with la, if the petitioner has encroached in to the public property, the possession of the property could not be disturbed R.S.No.188/7 of Mullampatti Village is a plan marked cart track. According to RSO 26 and instructions of the land Administration Department. A plan marked pathway in a patta land is a Government land. Eviction of encroachment in such lands need be invoked in cases where the encroacher has interfered with this plan marked detail so as to close its entrance to and exit from this lands. The 4th respondent son has preferred a petition in this co