Judgment :- 1. Petitioner seeks Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the Proceedings of the 1st Respondent in Na.Ka.No.49614/03/T1 dated 01. 2004 cancelling the Patta earlier granted in favour of the Petitioners mother and to direct the Respondents 1 to 3 to restore status quo in respect of those lands existed before 01. 2004. 2. In nutshell case of the Petitioner is as follows:- (i) Grete Toubro, wife of Toubro had purchased lands in Kodaikanal town S.Nos.28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 through sale deeds dated 18.09.1944. In 1982-1983 Government conducted updation of records. It is stated that Petitioners mother did not have notice of such updation of records. Only 10.11 acres falling within T.S.No.28 was stated to be in the ownership of Petitioners mother and Patta was granted. T.S.Nos. 29 and 31 were stated to be the pathway. No remarks made against T.S.Nos.30 and 32. In 1996, Petitioners mother submitted a representation to the Assistant Settlement Officer (ASO) to correct the mistakes and set right the records. (ii) After the death of Petitioners mother in the year 1997, Petitioner Ole K.Toubro had been in possession and enjoyment of those lands. He had sent an application through his Advocate to the ASO, Madurai requesting to issue Patta in his name for the purchased lands wherein it had been stated that the purchased lands were registered in the name of Petitioner. ASO, Madurai in his order R.Dis.No.10243/96A5 dated 112. 1998 had issued Patta in the name of Petitioner. On the strength of ASOs order, Tahsildar, Kodaikanal in his order No.3315/2001/B1 dated 28. 2001 had issued Patta No.FH 1395 in the name of Toubro Ole Christian for the above said lands. (iii) Public of Kilputhukadu and Observatory areas had presented a Petition to the Collector, Dindigul on 12. 2002 wherein it had been stated that the pathway in S.Nos.29 and 31 are being utilized by the people of Kilputhukadu area and Observatory area as shortcut road approach to Kodaikanal town. Hence, the public had requested to cancel the Pattas issued in the name of L & T Company and allow them to utilize this pathway as usual. .3. After calling for RDOs report, by the impugned order dated 01. 2004, 1st Respondent had cancelled the Patta transfer order dated 28. 2001 made by the Tahsildar. Based on Collectors order, necessary changes have been carried out in the Taluk as well as Village Revenue accounts. .3. After calling for RDOs report, by the impugned order dated 01. 2004, 1st Respondent had cancelled the Patta transfer order dated 28. 2001 made by the Tahsildar. Based on Collectors order, necessary changes have been carried out in the Taluk as well as Village Revenue accounts. Resultantly, T.S.Nos.29 and 31 had changed into original position i.e. Path and Boosthi path respectively. District Collector, Dindigul had also simultaneously sent letter No.49614/03/D1 dated 1. 2004 to the Special Commissioner and Director of Land Survey and Settlement, Chennai-5 requesting to cancel the order in R.Dis.No.10243/96/A5 dated 112. 1998 of ASO, Madurai since pathway in T.S.Nos.29 and 31 are being utilized by the public of Kilputhukadu and Observatory areas for a long time. Challenging the order of 1st Respondent dated 01. 2004, Petitioner has filed Writ Petition. 4. Stating that enquiry revealed T.S.Nos.29 and 31 are being utilized by the public of Kilputhukadu and Observatory areas for a long time as public pathway and therefore, 1st Respondent has rightly passed the order cancelling the Patta, Respondents 1 and 2 have filed the counter. 5. Fourth Respondent who claims through his ancestors has filed counter stating that without giving notice or information to the present Pattaholder, ASO, Madurai has passed the order in favour of the Writ Petitioner to issue Patta for the properties. According to the 4th Respondent, mother of Writ Petitioner has not purchased old S.No.93/2E and as such Petitioner has no right or title over 5 acres of land in dispute. Old S.No.92/2B has been wrongly correlated to T.S.No.30 and therefore, Petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for in the Writ Petition. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner Mrs. Malini Ganesh has submitted that Petitioners mother never allowed the public to use the pathway as of right and permission granted will not confer right upon the public to claim pathway as of right. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that by order dated 28. 2001, Tahsildar, Kodaikanal has only implemented the orders of ASO, Madurai. Learned counsel for the Petitioner mainly argued that when orders of ASO, Madurai dated 112. 1998 was not challenged and the same had become final, it is not open to the 1st Respondent to cancel the same. .7. On behalf of the Respondents 1 and 2 Mr. N. Senthilkumar, learned Addl. Learned counsel for the Petitioner mainly argued that when orders of ASO, Madurai dated 112. 1998 was not challenged and the same had become final, it is not open to the 1st Respondent to cancel the same. .7. On behalf of the Respondents 1 and 2 Mr. N. Senthilkumar, learned Addl. Government Pleader has submitted that based on the representation given by the public and after due enquiry, District Collector, Dindigul arrived at the conclusion that T.S.Nos.29 and 31 are used as pathway by the public of Kilputhukadu and Observatory areas and District Collector, Dindigul has rightly cancelled the Patta ordered by the Tahsildar. Learned Addl. Government Pleader would further submit that order of ASO, Madurai is not final and the Collector being a superior is entitled to pass impugned order and the same cannot be challenged. 8. On behalf of the 4th Respondent, learned counsel Mr.K.P.Gopalakrishnan has submitted that when Petitioners mother had not purchased old S.No.93/2E and while so, old S.No.92/2B has been wrongly correlated to T.S.No.30 which is the subject matter of dispute. Placing reliance upon (2005) 4 MLJ 473 (Union of India and others v. P. Gurunathan), learned counsel for the 4th Respondent further submitted that exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, High Court cannot go into the disputed questions of fact. 9. After the matter was posted for orders, learned counsel for the Petitioner has produced additional Typed set of papers, from which it is seen that based on District Collectors letter dated 1. 2004, the Special Commissioner and Director of Land Survey and Settlement had seized up the matter. Notice was also sent to the Petitioner and enquiry is said to be pending. Question whether the pathway in T.S.Nos.29 and 31 are private pathway of the Petitioner and whether public have right of pathway by a long user are the disputed questions of fact. The same has to be examined and considered with reference to the revenue records, statement of witnesses and long usage. Since the competent authority had seized up the matter, Petitioner can agitate the matter by putting forth his contention before the competent authority. 10. According to the 4th Respondent, his mother had purchased old S.No.93/2E corresponding to T.S.No.30. According to the 4th Respondent, mother of the Writ Petitioner had no right or title over the entire extent of 5 acres of land in dispute. 11. 10. According to the 4th Respondent, his mother had purchased old S.No.93/2E corresponding to T.S.No.30. According to the 4th Respondent, mother of the Writ Petitioner had no right or title over the entire extent of 5 acres of land in dispute. 11. Learned counsel for the 4th Respondent has stated that 4th Respondent has challenged the ASO order in R.Dis.10243/96/A5 dated 112. 1998 before RDO. When ASO order has been challenged before RDO in a manner known to law, it is open to the 4h Respondent to raise the issue before RDO / 2nd Respondent. Fourth Respondent is at liberty to bring it to the notice of the Special Commissioner and Director of Land Survey and Settlement about the steps he has taken in challenging the order of ASO. 12. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:- Petitioner is directed to seek remedy before the competent authority / Special Commissioner and Director of Land Survey and Settlement by raising contentious points. The Special Commissioner and Director of Land Survey and Settlement is directed to afford sufficient opportunity to the parties concerned and shall examine the matter along with the proceedings pending before the Special Commissioner and Director of Land Survey and Settlement pertaining to the report of the District Collector in Na.Ka.No.49614/03/D1 dated 1. 2004. Fourth Respondent is at liberty to bring it to the notice of the Special Commissioner and Director of Land Survey and Settlement about the proceedings pending before the RDO. 4th Respondent is at liberty to get himself impleaded in the proceedings before the Special Commissioner and Director of Land Survey and Settlement. On such impleading application filed by the 4th Respondent, the same shall be considered on merits. Either of the parties, if aggrieved against the order of Special Commissioner and Director of Land Survey and Settlement, it open to them to challenge the same in the manner known to law. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.