Judgment :- Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 2. This writ petition has been filed to quash the order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in Na.Woo.(2) 6378/99, dated 23. 2000 and confirmed by the first respondent herein in his proceedings Na.Woo(2) 6378/99, dated 29. 2000. 3. It has been stated that the petitioner is the owner of the property in question, in accordance with a registered settlement deed, dated 7. 1956. On the eastern side of the property, the respondents 3 to 5 are possessing vacant sites. In between the property of the petitioner and the respondents 3 to 5, there is a North-south drainage. The petitioner had permitted the residents, who are having houses on the Northern side of the petitioners property, to use the north south drainage to have ingress and egress to their houses, as a humanitarian gesture. Since the mother of the petitioner is residing in the property belonging to the petitioner, the respondents 3 to 5 were trying to encroach upon the property, with malafide intentions. Therefore, the petitioner had filed a suit in O.S.No.1882 of 1997, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Coimbatore, praying for a permanent injunction. 4. It has further been stated that the petitioner had filed a petition before the Inspector of Town survey Unit-I, Coimbatore, on 111. 1997. The Inspector of Town Survey had passed an order dividing the S.F.No.1481 into two sub divisions and he had allotted S.F.No.1481/1 to the petitioner, on 212. 1997. Against the order of the Inspector of Land Survey, the third respondent had filed an appeal before the Assistant Director, the District Land Survey Registration Department, Coimbatore. After an enquiry, the Assistant Director had set aside the order of the Inspector on the ground that the document No.3316/56, is not pertaining to S.F.No.1481 and he had directed the petitioner to seek an appropriate remedy through a Court of law. The petitioner had filed an appeal before the District Revenue Officer, against the order of the Assistant Director. The District Revenue Officer had also confirmed the order of the Assistant Director. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. The petitioner had filed an appeal before the District Revenue Officer, against the order of the Assistant Director. The District Revenue Officer had also confirmed the order of the Assistant Director. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had contended that the first and the second respondents had not applied their minds over the document No.3316/56, dated 7. 1956. It has also been stated that the statement of the first respondent that there is no provision to stay the Government proceedings, as the matter is pending before the Civil Court, is erroneous. Both the first and the second respondents have not properly considered the document No.3336/36, dated 18. 1936. Since the petitioner would be put to irreparable loss and hardship, the impugned orders have to be set aside as they are arbitrary and invalid in the eye of law. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents had denied the allegations made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents had submitted that the petitioner could raise all the issues before the concerned Civil Court to establish his rights over the property in question. There are no adverse findings in the impugned proceedings, affecting the rights of the petitioner. 7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available before this Court, it is seen that the respondents 1 and 2 had passed the impugned orders directing the petitioner to workout his remedies with regard to the rights over the property in question before the concerned civil Court. Even though certain observations seem to have been made by the respondents in their impugned proceedings, dated 23. 2000 and 29. 2000, it is clear that the issues raised by the petitioner could only be settled by initiating the necessary civil proceedings before the appropriate civil Court. 8. It has been clearly stated, in the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 23. 2000, which has been confirmed by the first respondent in his order, dated 29. 2000, that the observations made in the impugned orders can only be adjudicated upon by the civil Courts. 8. It has been clearly stated, in the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 23. 2000, which has been confirmed by the first respondent in his order, dated 29. 2000, that the observations made in the impugned orders can only be adjudicated upon by the civil Courts. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by the impugned proceedings passed by the first and second respondents. It is open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate civil Court to establish his rights, with regard to the issues raised by him before the first and second respondents and it is for the civil Court concerned to decide the issues so raised by the petitioner, without being influenced by the observations or the findings given by the first and second respondents in their impugned proceedings, dated 29. 2000 and 23. 2000, respectively. 9. With the above observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.