Judgment :- 1. Petitioner prays for issuance of writ, in the nature of certiorari, to quash the order 15.07.2011, passed by the District Collector, with a further prayer for injunction restraining the 5th respondent from raising any construction in the pathway used by the Muslim community people, to carry dead bodies to the burial ground comprised in Survey No.220/A, Kalavai village, Arcot Taluk. 2. The submission of the petitioner is that vide Gazette Notification dated 11.02.1959, land in S.No.220/A, Kavalai village, Arcot Taluk was allocated to the petitioner mosque by the Tamilnadu Wakf Board for the purpose of maintenance and up-keep of the Mosque. The notification shows that S.No.220/A is a burial ground. 3. In the year 1997, the 5th respondent claimed ownership over portion of land which according to the petitioner was pathway. The 4th respondent held an enquiry and reported that there was no evidence available to establish that the disputed portion of the land belongs to the Muslim Community people. In the enquiry it was reported that the alleged pathway belongs to 5th respondent. 4. The petitioner on receipt of report, applied to Chief Executive Officer, Tamilnadu Wakf Board, Chennai for supply of certified copy of the records showing that the property belonged to the petitioner Masjid. Executive Officer issued a certified copy of the proforma report, qua, the property showing that the property in S.No.220/A to be under the ownership of a Mosque being a burial ground. The 5th respondent on the other hand is claiming the ownership in pursuance to the purchase by way of registered sale deed. 5. The case of the petitioner is that 5th respondent tried to raise a residential building when a dispute was raised by the petitioner on which the 4th respondent conducted enquiry wherein, it was again held that 5th respondent has purchased this property by way of registered sale deed. The order also stipulated that appeal against the order could be filed within 30 days of issuance of the order. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that appeal could not be filed as there was no District Revenue Officer. The case of the petitioner further is that taking advantage of non-availability of Appellate Authority, the 5th respondent tried to raise construction. 7. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that appeal could not be filed as there was no District Revenue Officer. The case of the petitioner further is that taking advantage of non-availability of Appellate Authority, the 5th respondent tried to raise construction. 7. The petitioner, therefore filed W.P.No.16388/2011, in this court praying for a writ in the nature of prohibition, restraining the construction of residence by the 5th respondent. This court disposed of the writ petition filed by the petitioner by directing 1st respondent to dispose of the appeal. 8. The 1st respondent has concurred with the finding of the respondents 3 and 4 holding that the property belongs to 5th respondent. 9. Petitioner has now approached this court to challenge the impugned order. 10. It is a well settled law, that the dispute qua title to property has to be determined by the Civil court, whereas the authorities like respondents 1 to 4 were only required to prima facie enquire into the dispute. In case of the dispute qua property is likely to result in breach of peace. It was on account of this power vested in the Executives, that the enquiry was got conducted, whereas title to property can only be determined by the civil court. This court cannot go into this question, as the case of the petitioner is based on the certificate issued by Tamilnadu Wakf Board whereas the 5th respondent is claiming title in pursuance to sale deed. 11. This dispute can only be decided on appreciation of evidence in accordance with law, but cannot be adjudicated in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 12. No merits. Dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.