Judgment 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. 2. The grievance of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is that the revision petitioner has received a notice dated 13. 2009 from the first respondent and no land was acquired as stated in the said communication dated 13. 2009 and the survey number mentioned in the said communication as S.No.136/11A does not belong to him. Challenging the said notice of the first respondent dated 13. 2009, the revision petitioner has filed O.S.SR.No.2207 of 2008 but the plaint was returned by the learned District Munsif, Chidambaram stating that the suit is barred under Section 63 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001. The learned counsel would contend that after the receipt of the said notice dated 13. 2009, she had approached the first respondent as well as the second respondent on 20.3.2009(page 15 of the typed set of paper) raising her objections for the acquisition of land as well as the facts stated in first respondents letter dated 13. 2009. But so far no action was taken either by the first respondent or by the second respondent. 3. As far as the rejection of the plaint by the learned District Munsif in O.S.SR.No.2207 of 2009 is concerned, the same is not devoid of any merit, because of the specific bar for the revision petitioner to file a suit under Section 63 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001. But under Section 20 of the said Act, the petitioner can very well prefer a reference before the appropriate authority and he can pursue his letter of objection dated 20.3.2009 filed before the first respondent as well as the second respondent since he has preferred his objections within the time as stipulated under Section 20 of the said Act. 4. In fine, this civil revision petition is dismissed before admission. The first and second respondents are directed to take necessary action under the letter of objections filed by the revision petitioner dated 20.3.2009(Page 15 of typed set of paper) within one month from today (14. 2009). The parties are directed to maintain status quo till then. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is also dismissed.