O R D E R

The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 25.08.2016.

2. The case of the petitioner as projected in the representation dated

25.08.2016 and as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is that, the petitioner is residing at Survey No.155/6, which is an agricultural land also. In that land, he constructed a house and has been residing there for long years. Adjacent to the said land, there is a forest land and since the said forest land was a barren land, the petitioner claims that he has been using the said land for ingress and egress of his property. While so, recently the fifth respondent was able to get patta in respect of the said forest land and on the strength of the patta, the fifth respondent was interfering with the ingress and egress of the petitioner to reach his property in S.No.155/6 and in this regard even though Civil Suit was filed and some decree was passed by way of prohibitory injunction, the action on the part of the fifth respondent in preventing the ingress and egress of the petitioner to and from the petitioner's property is continuing unabated and therefore, in order to curtail the same and to cancel the alleged patta in the name of the fifth respondent to the forest land adjacent to the petitioner's land, the petitioner has given a representation dated 25.08.2016 to the first respondent District Collector with a copy marked to the second respondent and the third respondent to cancel the patta issued in favour of the fifth respondent. Since the said representation has not been considered, the petitioner has moved this writ petition with the aforesaid prayer.

3. Heard Mr.R.Jayaprakash learned counsel for the the petitioner, who would contend that, the petitioner admittedly is having his own land at S.No.155/6 which is an agricultural land also and for long number of years the petitioner has been using the nearby forest land, which is a vacant land, though belonging to the Forest Department, as ingress and egress of the petitioner's property and therefore, by virtue of that land use, the petitioner got easementary rights. When that being so, clandestinely the fifth respondent was able to get patta in respect of the forest land adjacent to the petitioner's land in S.No.155/2 and because of the patta received by the fifth respondent, with the strength of the same, she is preventing the petitioner from using the said land, which is a forest land and therefore, in order to cancel the patta for the forest land given in the name of the fifth respondent, the petitioner had given a representation dated 25.08.2016. However, the same has not been considered and patta so far has not been cancelled.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that, in this regard though suit has been filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.68/2003 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Perambalur, where a decree was passed on 31.10.2014 granting permanent injunction restraining the respondents therein which includes the fifth respondent, who stood as the second defendant in the said suit, the fifth respondent is continuing to prevent the petitioner from using the subject land as the ingress and egress of the petitioner's property and therefore, in this regard the patta granted in favour of the fifth respondent shall be cancelled. Therefore, for the said purpose, the representation of the petitioner dated 25.08.2016 should be directed to be considered on merits and orders shall be passed thereon within a time frame that may be stipulated by this Court, he contended.

5. On the other hand, Mr.P.Jagadeesan learned counsel for the fifth respondent would submit that, the claim made by the petitioner is not correct and the patta issued in respect of the land in favour of the fifth respondent is not belonging to the Forest Department and therefore the same need not be cancelled. Moreover, the petitioner does not hav