Judgment :- 1. Since, the issues involved in all the writ petitions are similar in nature, they have been taken up together and a common order is being passed. 2. Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned. 3. It has been stated that the petitioners had purchased the properties in question, from the predecessor-in-title. Thereafter, the lands in question have been in the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners concerned. While so, the respondents 3 to 5 had planted casuarina trees, along the coast line, under the Emergency Tsunami Reconstruction Project, assisted by the World Bank, to prevent soil erosion and to protect the properties from further devastation by Tsunami or giant waves, during rough weather. The respondents 3 to 5 had planted casuarina trees, along the entire stretch of the east coast, from Kottivakkam to Mahabalipuram, by entering into an agreement of memorandum of understanding, with the various land owners. Similarly, the respondents 3 to 5 had entered into an agreement, with the sixth respondent, in respect of the lands, situated in survey No.208, Nemmeli village. While so, the sixth respondent, claiming to be the beneficiary of Alawandhar Trust, has been attempting to encroach upon the lands belonging to the petitioners. 4. It has been further stated that the said Trust had also filed a civil suit, in O.S.No.244 of 2004, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengalpet, stating that the said Trust has patta lands, in survey No.208, Nemmeli village. Therefore, the said suit had been filed praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant therein, from interfering with the sixth respondent's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, which is said to be comprised, in S.No.216, Nemmeli village, to an extent of 7.33 acres. In the plaint filed in the said suit, in O.S.No.244 of 2004, it has been stated that the suit property is a vacant seashore land, registered as Natham, in the revenue accounts, bearing S.No.216, Nemmeli village, adjoining the suit property. The plaintiff Trust has patta lands, in S.No.208/2B, measuring an extent of 242.16 acres. 5. It has been further stated that the plaintiff has every right to annex the adjoining small extent of land, which is the narrow strip of land facing the sea. The plaintiff Trust has patta lands, in S.No.208/2B, measuring an extent of 242.16 acres. 5. It has been further stated that the plaintiff has every right to annex the adjoining small extent of land, which is the narrow strip of land facing the sea. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners, with regard to the lands in question, cannot be validly contested, by the sixth respondent, by stating that the writ petitions, filed by the petitioners, are not maintainable, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. It has also been stated that the sixth respondent, claiming to be the beneficiary, cannot encroach the patta lands, belonging to the petitioners. Since, the sixth respondent is attempting to interfere with the peaceful possession and occupation of the properties in question, they had filed the present writ petitions, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. In the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents concerned, the claim of the petitioners that they are the absolute owners of the lands, in survey No.216, Nemmeli village, Kancheepuram District, is disputed. 8. The claim of the petitioners that the officials of the Forest Department had entered into various agreements with them, for planting casuarina trees, under the Emergency Tsunami Reconstruction Project, has also been disputed. 9. It has also been stated that some of the persons, who are erecting fences, had been warned that the clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, was required before such activities are undertaken. 10. It had also been stated that the boundaries between survey Nos.208 and 216/1 (part) could not be clearly marked. Further, some of the lands, in S.No.216 (part) has been in the possession of the Alawandar Trust, for a long time. Since, there is a dispute, with regard to the title and possession of the lands in question, it is for the petitioners to agitate the matter, before the appropriate forum, in the manner known to law. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had submitted that the properties in question are in the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners, as they are the absolute owners of the said land, in S.No.216, Nemmeli Village, Kancheepuram District. The lands had been purchased from the erstwhile owners, who had sold the lands for valuable consideration, as they had transferable title, in respect of the lands in question. The lands had been purchased from the erstwhile owners, who had sold the lands for valuable consideration, as they had transferable title, in respect of the lands in question. 12. He had further submitted that the respondents, especially, the Executive Officer, Arulmigu Alavandar Nayakar Charity, Chelgalpet, Kancheepuram District and the Executive Officer, Nemmeli Arulmigu Alavandar Naicker Charity, Kancheepuram District, the seventh and the eighth respondents herein, had no right or authority to interfere with the peaceful possession and occupation of the property in question, by the petitioners. The patta, adangal, chitta and the other revenue documents relating to the properties in question, are in the name of the petitioners or their vendors, who had the titles to the properties in question. 13. It had also been submitted that the property taxes, relating to the lands in question, had been paid by the petitioners or their predecessors-in-title. In such circumstances, it is not open to the respondents, especially, the seventh and the eighth respondents herein, to claim that the lands in question, belong to them. Even otherwise, it is not open to the respondents, who are Governmental authorities to do any such acts, which are arbitrary and illegal and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the appropriate remedy available to the petitioners is to approach this Court, by way of the present writ petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had further submitted that an enquiry may be conducted, by an appropriate authority, after giving notices to the parties concerned, for demarcating the boundaries of the lands in question. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had further submitted that it is for the seventh and the eighth respondents, who are the beneficiaries of the Alavandar Trust, to establish their title, in respect of the lands in question, by filing civil suits before the appropriate forum. It would not be open to them to make their claims, contrary to the facts of the case, stating that they are the owners of the lands in question. 16. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had submitted that this Court may be pleased to direct the respondents, from interfering with the peaceful possession and occupation of the properties in question, without following the due process of law. 17. 16. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had submitted that this Court may be pleased to direct the respondents, from interfering with the peaceful possession and occupation of the properties in question, without following the due process of law. 17. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had relied on the decision of the supreme Court, in CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. DEVI ISPAT LTD., (2010) 11 SCC 186 ), to substantiate his contention that the respondents, who are instrumentalities of the State, cannot act in an arbitrary manner, contrary to the principles enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 18. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents had submitted that the writ petitions filed by the petitioners, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, are not maintainable, in view of the reliefs prayed for by them in the present writ petitions. 19. It has been further stated that the petitioners ought to establish their rights, in respect of the lands in question, by way of civil suits, to declare their title in respect of the properties concerned and to pray for an order of injunction, to restrain the rival claimants from interfering with the peaceful possession and occupation of the said properties. When the title of the properties are in dispute and when the issue relating to the possession of such properties has to be established, by way of evidence, such matters could be proved only before an appropriate civil forum. The demarcation of the properties in question cannot be done, by any Governmental authorities, as the matter is sub judice, before the Courts concerned. 20. It had also been pointed out that this Court had passed an order, dated 17.4.2012, made in W.P.Nos.9495 to 9499 and 9824 to 9828 of 2012, in respect of the similarly situated lands, which are adjacent to the lands in question, holding that it is for the civil Court concerned to establish the rights relating to the title of the properties in question. The other cases, wherein similar issues had been raised, relating to the said lands, in W.P.Nos.9495 to 9499 and 9824 to 9828 of 2012, had been withdrawn. When such disputed questions of fact are being raised, it is for the civil Court to decide the issues, based on evidence. The other cases, wherein similar issues had been raised, relating to the said lands, in W.P.Nos.9495 to 9499 and 9824 to 9828 of 2012, had been withdrawn. When such disputed questions of fact are being raised, it is for the civil Court to decide the issues, based on evidence. Therefore, the present writ petitions ought to be dismissed, by this Court, as not maintainable. 21. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, and on considering the decisions cited supra, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petitions are not maintainable, as the issues raised therein are disputed questions of fact, relating to the title and possession and enjoyment of the properties in question, by the petitioners. 22. Since, rival claims had been made between the petitioner and the seventh and the eighth respondents, with regard to the ownership and the possession of the said properties, such issues had to be decided before the appropriate civil forum, in the manner known to law. Therefore, it is not for this Court, exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to decide such matters, which has to be established, by sufficient evidence, oral as well as documentary. 23. It is noted that a civil suit had also been filed by Alavandar Trust, in O.S.No.244 of 2004, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengalpet, praying for a decree of permanent injunction, in respect of the properties in question. Further, the decision of the Supreme Court, in CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. DEVI ISPAT LTD., (2010) 11 SCC 186 ), cannot be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present cases, as the said decision had been rendered, by the Supreme Court, relating to certain contractual matters. 24. It is also noted that an order had been passed by this Court, on 17.4.2012, made in W.P.Nos.9495 to 9499 and 9824 to 9828 of 2012, relating to a portion of the properties in question, dismissing the same stating that the matter is to be decided by an appropriate civil forum. In such circumstances, without going into the merits of the matter, the writ petitions, filed by the petitioners, are dismissed, as not maintainable. In such circumstances, without going into the merits of the matter, the writ petitions, filed by the petitioners, are dismissed, as not maintainable. However, it goes without saying that it would be open to the petitioners to approach the civil forum, to establish their claims, in respect of the properties in question, in the manner known to law. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2010, M.P.No.1 and 1 of 2011, M.P.No.1 and 1 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 and 1 of 2010 are closed.