JUDGMENT :

S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner representation dated 23.02.2015 and cancel the wrong sub-division in respect of S. No. 146/5A, 146/5B, 146/6A, 146/6B, 146/7A, 146/7B, 146/16A, 146/16B, 236/1B1, 236/1B2, 236/2C1, 236/2C2, 236/2D1, 236/2D2, 236/2E1, 236/2E2, 236/2F1, 236/2F2, 236/5A, 236/5B and 236/8A in the UDR and restore them in the original S. No. 146/5, 146/6, 146/7, 146/16, 236/1B, 236/2C, 236/2D, 236/2E, 236/2F, 236/5 and 236/8.

1. The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representations submitted by the writ petitioner on 23.02.2015 and cancel the wrong sub-division in respect of Survey No. 146/5A, 146/5B, 146/6A, 146/6B, 146/7A, 146/7B, 146/16A, 146/16B, 236/1B1, 236/1B2, 236/2C1, 236/2C2, 236/2D1, 236/2D2, 236/2E1, 236/2E2, 236/2F1, 236/2F2, 236/5A, 236/5B and 236/8A in the UDR and restore them in the original Survey No. 146/5, 146/6, 146/7, 146/16, 236/1B, 236/2C, 236/2D, 236/2E, 236/2F, 236/5 and 236/8 and grant such further or other reliefs.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner in clear terms, contended that there is no title dispute in respect of the property belongs to the petitioner. However, the representation is submitted to cancel the erroneous sub-division made by the authorities. It is contended that the third respondent/Chembrambakkam Minor Panchayat is also creating trouble in respect of such sub-division made erroneously.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner is of an opinion that even after the sub-division is effected, the property right of the petitioner is not affected. However, regarding creation of pathway and the wrong sub-division made, the representation is submitted to restore the original survey number.

4. This Court is of the considered opinion that incase, a wrong sub-division is made, it is for the authorities to correct the same by following the procedures as contemplated. As far as the petitioner is concerned, his property right is not affected and the learned counsel for the petitioner also clarified that the petitioner has not filed any writ petition, claiming his property right.

5. But, it is contended that the representation is to be disposed of by issuing an appropriate direction by this Court.

6. Even for issuing a direction to consider the representation, a person filing a writ petition should establish his right or infringement of any such right. As merely stating, a wrong sub-division is made and seeking a direction to consider the representation for the purpose of canceling the sub-division, this Court cannot issue a direction as certain issues in this regard may involve the property rights of other persons also. However, these disputed factors are to be adjudicated before the competent authority or before the competent Court of law.

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent/Panchayat, opposed the writ petitioner by stating that the very same writ petitioner earlier filed the writ petition in W.P. No. 6915 of 2002 with a prayer to forbear the respondents therein or anybody claiming through the respondents from anyway interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lands of the petitioner comprised in Survey No. 146/7, 146/16, 236/1, 236/2C, 236/2D, 236/2E and 236/2F situated in Chembarambakkam Ponnamallee Taluk, Tiruvallore District without due process of law.

8. In the said writ petition, the petitioner has clearly stated by way of sworn affidavit as follows:

“12. To their shock and surprise the petitioner came to know that the land comprised in S. No. 146/7, 146/16, 236/2B, 2C, 236/2E, 236/2F of the petitioner has been shown as subdivided Sub-Division No. 146/7B, 146/16B, 236/1B1, 1B2, 2E1, 2E2, 2F1, 2F2, 236/2A, 2B, 2C1 and 2D1 respectively and Survey Nos. 146/7B, 146/16B, 236/2C1, 236/2D1, 2E1, 2F1 and 236/2B is shown as p