Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of prohibition, restraining the respondents from laying a road on petitioner's patta land, bearing Chennankuppam Dry S. Nos. 316/1-B and 319/5-B extent of l acre 60 cents, situated at Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District, without following the due process of law. 2. The petitioner is an agriculturalist, who purchased the land from one Gangamma, W/o. Kesavulu of Chennankuppam Village and since the date of purchase, the petitioner, being the absolute owner, is in peaceful possession of the land. 3. It is submitted by petitioner, that in pursuance to the sale, patta was also granted in favour of petitioner for land measuring 1 acre 30 cents. That respondent nos.4 to 6 tried to interfere in the possession of petitioner, by laying a road running through his patta land, without acquiring the land or following due process of law, which was objected to by petitioner. 4. It is the case of petitioner, that on being questioned, the petitioner was informed that the Panchayat Union, had passed a resolution for laying road through the patta land of petitioner, as according to revenue record, a passage was going through the land purchased by the petitioner. 5. For the reasons best known to petitioner, the resolution of the Panchayat Union is not challenged in this Court. This Court issued notice to the respondents, even though resolution of Panchayat was not challenged by the petitioner for the reasons best known. 6. In the counter filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 3, the stand taken is, that the resolution passed by the Panchayat Union stands cancelled by the Collector in exercise of powers under Section 202 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, on the ground, that it was not open to the Panchyat Union to pass resolution for laying a road in the patta land, belonging to an individual owner, in view of Section 137 of the Panchayat Act. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 6, however contends, that there is 10 feet mud path running through the land, which is noticed by the Collector in the order, therefore, the petitioner cannot have any right over the 10 feet mud path running through his patta land. 8. This contention of learned counsel for the respondents is misconceived. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 6, however contends, that there is 10 feet mud path running through the land, which is noticed by the Collector in the order, therefore, the petitioner cannot have any right over the 10 feet mud path running through his patta land. 8. This contention of learned counsel for the respondents is misconceived. Once the land is the patta land, though a mud path is running through it, it is always open to the registered owner to stop the passage, in absence of any right of easement or other right, being established in the Civil Court, to continue its use. The contention of learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 to 6 is rejected, being devoid of any merit. 9. In view of cancellation of resolution by Collector, the grievance of petitioner is redressed. Consequently, this writ petition is rendered infructuous. However, disposal of this writ petition shall not come in way of the respondent nos.4 to 6, to challenge the order of the Collector, if so advised, in accordance with law. 10. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.