Judgment :- Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner and his wife R.Alangaram have been in possession and enjoyment of seven cents of land, classified as Odai Poramboke, in S.No.5/3, Mangalam Mamandur Village, Vandavasi Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District, by constructing a thatched house and cattle shed and by rearing trees for more than 30 years. The petitioner and his wife have been paying house tax to the village panchayat, besides paying B memo charges to the Government. The petitioner has also obtained electricity service connection to the said house. Since the petitioner has no other place to reside, he had made a representation, dated 12. 2001, to the second respondent to grant patta for the said land in the light of G.O.Ms.No.168, Revenue Department (L.A), dated 23. 2000. However, the respondents had not considered the representation made by the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. .3. In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, it has been stated that the land in question is classified as Odai Poramboke and since the occupation of the petitioner in the said land has been treated as objectionable, penalty has been levied on him and he has been remitting the B. memo charges to the Government. The electricity connection has been provided by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, after obtaining a No Objection Certificate from the Village Administrative Officer, on the condition that the service connection would be disconnected, as and when the land was required by the Government. As the petitioner had been issued with a House site patta of 0.03 cents in S.No.3 of Mangalam Mamandur Village, by the Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare) Vandavasi, in Order No.A/1953/87, dated 8. 1991, his contention that the petitioner has no other place to reside is not correct, as plot No.23, in S.No.3 is in his possession from the year, 1991. 4. It has been further stated that the Government, in G.O.Ms.No.168, Revenue Department (L.A), dated 23. 2000, has mentioned about the grant of house site patta to those who have occupied and who are residing, in poramboke lands, for more than 10 years, since the petitioner had already been allotted with the house site patta in S.No.3, he is not eligible for another house site patta. 2000, has mentioned about the grant of house site patta to those who have occupied and who are residing, in poramboke lands, for more than 10 years, since the petitioner had already been allotted with the house site patta in S.No.3, he is not eligible for another house site patta. Further, there is no petition pending with the revenue department, as contended by the petitioner. 5. It has been further stated that the petitioner is a Government servant working as a Salesman in a fair price shop at Kurippedu Village, H/o.Veliambakkam Village, Vandavasi Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District. The house site patta in S.No.3 (House site No.23) granted to him in Rc.No.1953/87, dated 8. 1991, is still vacant, as the petitioner had not constructed his house till date. Since the land in question is an Odai Poramboke, which is a water source poramboke land, patta cannot be granted in favour of the petitioner. Even otherwise, the petitioner would be eligible for a house site patta only for an extent of 0.03 cents and not the entire 0.07 cents, as claimed by him, even in case the State Government decides to grant house site patta. 6. In view of the contentions raised by the petitioner as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner. 7. However, during the course of the arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to make a fresh representation to the first respondent, with regard to the reliefs sought for in the writ petition, if so advised and the first respondent may be directed to dispose of the same, on merits, within a specified time. .8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has no objection for this Court passing such an order. 9. .8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has no objection for this Court passing such an order. 9. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, the petitioner is permitted to make a representation to the first respondent, with regard to the reliefs sought for in the writ petition, within a period of four weeks from today, and on such representation being submitted, the first respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks thereafter. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.