Judgment : The prayer in the Writ Petition is for a issue of writ of mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioners representation dated 17.10.2008 for cancellation of patta in respect of property situated at No.22, Korattur Village, Poonamalle Taluk, Tirunindravur Firka, Tiruvallur District (previously Chengalpet District) measuring an extent of 92 cents. 2. According to the petitioner, the property in question was purchased by his father Shanmuga Mudaliar by a sale deed registered as Document No.1521 of 1962 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Poonamalle. After the demise of the said Shanmuga Mudaliar on 06.10.1997, his legal heirs, which includes the petitioner inherited the property. According to the petitioner, the respondents 3 and 4 are the brothers of his father who have been allotted other lands and the subject matter viz.,92 cents land is an exclusive property owned by his father. However, when the updation of revenue records took place, the names of the respondents 3 and 4 have been wrongly entered in the patta and therefore, the petitioner has sought for cancelling the same. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents 3 and 4 denying the averments made by the petitioner and stating that originally 7 items of property was purchased in the name of petitioners father from and out of family funds of the respondents 3 and 4 and Shanmuga Mudaliar and several properties were owned by the family. The respondents would also rely upon a kurchit to support their plea that there was a partition. Based on such partition, according to them, the Patta, Chitta and Adangal have been properly transferred in their names. 4. Therefore, having considered the plea raised by the petitioner as well as the respondents 3 and 4, it is noted that there is civil dispute relating the said property and there is a rival claim between the petitioner and the private respondents. 5. The Honourable Division Bench of this Court in Kuppuswami Nainar v. The District Revenue Officer and others reported in 1995 (1) MLJ 426 has held that the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to enquire into disputed questions of title and the same is the exclusive jurisdiction of civil Court. 5. The Honourable Division Bench of this Court in Kuppuswami Nainar v. The District Revenue Officer and others reported in 1995 (1) MLJ 426 has held that the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to enquire into disputed questions of title and the same is the exclusive jurisdiction of civil Court. In the said judgment, the Honourable Division Bench has held as follows: "Revenue Officers in a patta proceedings may express their views on the question of title, but such expression of opinion or decision is not conclusive and it is only intended to support their decision fro granting patta. Ultimately, it is the civil court which has to adjudicate the question as to whether the person claiming patta is the title-holder of the land. Even if the revenue authorities decide the question of title, that will not in any way affect the jurisdiction of the civil court, which has to decide the question without reference to the decision of the revenue authorities. In a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution, the question of title regarding immovable property cannot be gone into because a mass of evidence may be required for adjudicating the question of title. Even if the court is to interfere with the order under appeal, it is the other party who has to go to a civil Court and establish title. As far as the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is concerned, it does not matter to it whether A party goes to civil Court or B party. Therefore, the Court is of the view that the question of title has to be decided by the civil Court without reference to the order under question. Hence, the Court declines to interfere with the order challenged in the writ petition." 7. In such circumstances, the prayer sought for in the Writ Petition cannot be granted as the revenue officials cannot adjudicate into the dispute raised by the petitioner or the respondents 3 and 4. Therefore, the appropriate forum before which the petitioner has to agitate his rights is the competent civil Court. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he and his family members are being threatened by the legal heirs of the 3rd respondent. This submission of course is being disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the private respondents. Therefore, the appropriate forum before which the petitioner has to agitate his rights is the competent civil Court. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he and his family members are being threatened by the legal heirs of the 3rd respondent. This submission of course is being disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the private respondents. In any event, if there is any threat is meted out to the petitioner, it is always open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Law Enforcing Agency for redressal of his grievance. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to agitate his right before the competent civil Court. There shall no order as to costs.