Judgment :- W.P.No.29445 of 2011: 1. The petitioner is the owner of the property comprised in R.S.No.135/5 (old No.135/2) measuring 0.55.0 Ares, situated at Vadhistapuram in Thittakudi Taluk. The property is the joint family property with other family members being his co-owners. A rice mill in R.S.Nos.136/1 and 136/2 is adjacent to the property of the petitioner. The rice mill was purchased in the year 1966 from one Nagappa Chettiyar. It is submitted by the petitioner that some third parties are attempted to encroach the said property. The grandfather of the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.952 of 1996 in the District Munsif Court, Thittakudi for declaration that the property belongs to the petitioner's family with a consequential relief of permanent injunction. The respondent Nos.1 and 2, after filing the written statement, chose to not appear in the Court. The suit was decreed on 06.04.2010 and the decree has attained finality. 2. One brother of the petitioner was elected as President of the Town Panchayat in the year 2006 to 2011. Under his presidency, the Town Panchayat initiated eviction proceedings against the persons, whoever encroached the property. The respondent No.4 is said to have encroached the entry point of Town Bus stand by putting three shops building, which was also subjected to the eviction proceedings. The respondent No.4 was thereafter elected as the President, who under the wrong impression that earlier eviction proceedings were initiated by the brother of the petitioner, the respondent No.4 filed a writ petition in W.P.No.20835 of 2009, which was dismissed by this Court and appeal filed against the decision of the Hon'ble Single Judge also was dismissed. It is the submission of the petitioner, that at the instigation of respondent No.4, the respondent No.3 is deliberately parked the vehicles belonging to the Town Panchayat, and also dumped the waste materials in front of the property of the petitioner. This action has been challenged by the petitioner in O.S.No.277 of 2011, which is pending before the Sub-Court, Virudhachalam. The case of the petitioner is that this action of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 is causing irreparable loss and hardship to the petitioner as the action of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 highly objectionable. The case of the petitioner is that the representation made by the petitioner to the third respondent has not met with any relief. W.P.Nos.30119 and 30120 of 2011: 3. The case of the petitioner is that the representation made by the petitioner to the third respondent has not met with any relief. W.P.Nos.30119 and 30120 of 2011: 3. The petitioners are the lessees in Shop Nos.48 to 51 of the Town Panchayat, Thittakudi Municipality. The lease was granted by respondent No.3 in the year 2009 where they are running their business. The petitioners are regularly paying the rent. The shops are situated on Cement Road laid by the Town Panchayat. The roads starts from Social Community Hall and runs upto New Town Panchayat Office. There are number of other shops constructed by the Town Panchayat on this road. The case of the petitioners is that the Town Panchayat, the lessor of the property of the shops are parking the vehicles of the Town Panchayat and have also dumped the waste materials thereby affecting the right of the petitioners to use the property for which it was leased out. It is the submission of the petitioners that respondent No.3 is in know of the fact that the road is utilized by the general public and the merchants having shops on the road. The Town Panchayat by parking the vehicles and dumping the waste materials are creating nuisance and interfering in the right of the petitioners to use the property. 4. On the pleadings referred to above, the petitioners pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of prohibition, restraining the respondents, their subordinates or any other official from any way creating disturbance in the use of the property by parking vehicles in front of the property belonging to the petitioners. 5. The common case of the petitioners, is that the third respondent, in order to prevent the use of property by the petitioners in a free and fair manner, is deliberately parking the vehicles belonging to the Town Panchayat and is also dumping the waste materials in front of the property / shops. 6. It is the submission of the petitioners, that this act of the respondents is causing irreparable hardship to the petitioners. 7. The petitioners pray for the writ of prohibition on the ground, that the action of respondent Nos.3 and 4 is contrary to law, besides being illegal. 8. It is also the case of the petitioners that the acts of the respondents, amounts to deliberate act with intention to defeat the Civil Court's decree. 7. The petitioners pray for the writ of prohibition on the ground, that the action of respondent Nos.3 and 4 is contrary to law, besides being illegal. 8. It is also the case of the petitioners that the acts of the respondents, amounts to deliberate act with intention to defeat the Civil Court's decree. The other ground is, that the respondents 1 and 3 are not performing their statutory duty of maintaining the road for free use. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of the petitions vehemently contended, that the photograph placed on record show that the respondents have parked the vehicles unauthorisedly and thereby caused disturbance to the petitioners, from using their property. 10. On consideration, I find the writ petitions are totally misconceived. Even as per the averments of the petitioner in W.P. No: 29445 of 2011, the dispute regarding the property is pending in the Civil Court. It is open to the petitioners to seek appropriate remedy in the Civil Court, as this Court cannot go into the disputed questions raised in the writ petitions, as the allegations levelled are admitted, and are also disputed by the official. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that the action of the respondents, is in violation of Section 162 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920. This contention again is misconceived. Section 162 only imposes a duty on the Municipality to maintain and repair the streets. 12. The grievance of the petitioners is not regarding maintenance of the road/streets, but about the illegal construction, and of nuisance by wrongly parking the vehicles and throwing of waste materials. 13. The allegations of the petitioners, even if taken on the face value, amounts to nuisance. 14. The remedy open to the petitioners therefore is to file a petition under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and not to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court by raising disputed question of fact. 15. Consequently, finding no merit, all these writ petitions are Dismissed. 16. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. No costs.