Judgment :- 1. It has been stated that the petitioner had purchased an extent of 11.50 cents of land comprised in survey No.131/1B of Manjakuppan village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District, along with his brother J.Edwin Gnanasekaran, by way of a registered sale deed, dated 9.6.2004. The said land had been purchased from C.Natesan and others, who were the previous owners. The said property had been purchased by the petitioner and his brother from and out of a larger extent of the property measuring 30 cents. After the purchase of the property, the petitioner had applied for a revenue patta and the same had been issued by the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, vide patta No.342 and TKRPT No.3750/04-05, dated 21.7.2004, in the name of the petitioner and his brother. The petitioner and his brother have been in possession and enjoyment of the property from the date of its purchase. 2. It has been further stated that a portion of the larger extent of the land held by the previous owners of the property in question had been sold to the Highways Department, by way of a registered sale deed. The said property, measuring an extent of 18.50 cents, in survey No.133/1, had been sold to the Highways Department. However, 11.50 cents of land, purchased by the petitioner and his brother, had not been sold to the Highways Department, nor had it been acquired by the State Government, by way of a land acquisition proceedings. However, the respondent/Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, and its subordinates and agents have been attempting to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by the petitioner and his brother. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, it has been stated that the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, had requested the State Government for acquiring the land for the purpose of the land assembly and development scheme, along with the inner ring road, under phase III, measuring an extent of 6.14.0 hectares, situated in Manjambakkam village. Accordingly, Section 4(1) notification had been issued, on 30.6.1994. Thereafter, an enquiry had been conducted and an award had been passed, in award No.3/97, dated 27.6.1997. 4. Accordingly, Section 4(1) notification had been issued, on 30.6.1994. Thereafter, an enquiry had been conducted and an award had been passed, in award No.3/97, dated 27.6.1997. 4. It had also been stated that the petitioner had purchased the property from one Natesan, son of Chinnappa Naicker, by way of a sale deed, dated 9.6.2004. The said Natesan, who was the original owner of the property in question, at the time of the land acquisition proceedings, had participated in the said proceedings and a suitable amount had been given to him, by way of an award. Thereafter, he had executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner in the year, 2004, in respect of an extent of 11.50 cents, in survey No.131/1. 5. It has been further stated that even though the petitioner had purchased the lands in survey No.131/1, the present writ petition has been filed, in respect of survey No.131/1B of Manjambakkam village. The respondent Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority had acquired the property in survey No.131/1A and it has nothing to do with the property in S.No.131/1B. Natesan, the previous owner, had owned about 30 cents of land, comprised in S.No.131/1 part. In the year, 1995, he had executed a sale deed in favour of the Highways Department, in respect of 18.50 cents. Thereafter, there has been a sub-division of the survey number, as 131/1A and 131/1B. Survey No.131/1B had already been acquired by the National Highways Authority and the sale deed had also been executed in favour of the Highways Department. The remaining portion of 131/1A had been acquired by the respondent Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, which has proposed to implement a truck parking yard project in the said property. 6. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondent 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 to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition. 7. Since, disputed factual disputes are involved, such issues can be resolved only before a civil forum, by letting in evidence, both oral as well as documentary. As such, it is not for this Court to decide such issues, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Since, disputed factual disputes are involved, such issues can be resolved only before a civil forum, by letting in evidence, both oral as well as documentary. As such, it is not for this Court to decide such issues, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In such circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to dismiss the writ petition, making it clear that it would be open to the petitioner to resolve the disputed issues, before an appropriate civil forum, in the manner known to law. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.