Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this court, with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari, to quash the order dated 05.07.2010, of the 3rd respondent/District Revenue Officer, in ordering the Tahsildar 4th respondent to change the patta entries standing in the name of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is the owner of land measuring 3.32 acres comprised in S.No.16/2 Hectares 1.34.5, kist 1.86, in pursuance to purchase vide registered sale deed dated 14.08.2000. Since the date of purchase, petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property. 3. On the application moved by the petitioner, the Tahsildar granted patta No.i 51 in favour of the petitioner for the Fasili 1418. 4. The Case of the petitioner is that some persons tried to interfere in his peaceful possession by claiming it to be cart track. The Petitioner filed O.S.No.236/2010, in the District Munsif Court, Tirupattur for declaration of title and injunction restraining the respondents, from tresspassing into the property, by claiming to be cart road. 5. The State filed written statement in the suit, admitting the averments in the plaint. It was admitted, that there is an alternate path way. A positive stand was also taken in the written statement, that in case any cart road is to be carved out of the area under the ownership of the petitioner, then appropriate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act would be taken. 6. One Thiru A.S. Alauddin filed W.P.No.86 of 2001, by way of Public Interest Litigation for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the Collector to complete the work of laying a tar road on the cart track in S.No.16/2 and others of Molegaram Patti. 7. The petitioner through registered owner was not made party to the writ petition. 8. The writ petition was disposed of by passing the following order: "Without going into the merit of the contention of the petition, we are of the view that no mandamus can be issued for the relief sought by the writ petitioner. However we dispose the writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to approach the respondent by filing a suitable representation. It goes without saying that if such representation is filed, the respondents shall do the needful, if there is impediment in the matter of completion of work of laying the tar road in the aforesaid land. However we dispose the writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to approach the respondent by filing a suitable representation. It goes without saying that if such representation is filed, the respondents shall do the needful, if there is impediment in the matter of completion of work of laying the tar road in the aforesaid land. There shall be no order as to costs." Inspiteof the fact no decisions for laying the road were given by this court, the said Thiru Alauddin filed representation by projecting that the land in S.No.16/2 should be used as a cart track, in view of the directions by this court. 9. It was on application under the Right to Information Act, that the petitioner was supplied with the impugned order, vide which the directions have been issued by the District Revenue Officer, Vellore, to change the entries in patta, by showing the property including the property earlier registered in the name of the petitioner as cart-track. 10. The petitioner, has approached this court, for quashing the impugned order, on the ground that it is totally without jurisdiction, as the 3rd respondent has no jurisdiction to issue directions, to the Tahsildar to change the entries in the patta, without following due process of law as laid down under the Tamilnadu Patta Pass Book Act. 11. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that though in the pending the civil suit for the declaration of ownership of the petitioner with regard to disputed property, is admitted, still no notice was issued to the petitioner while issuing general direction, by way of the impugned order. 12. Learned counsel for the State opposed, the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the impugned order, as only directions have been issued to the Tahsildar, to carry out the correction in the Revenue records by showing land in S.No.16/2 to be cart track land, therefore petitioner cannot have any grievance to general directions. 13. Learned counsel for the State, further contends that the 3rd respondent has power under the Revenue Board standing orders under No.15 to issue such direction, which reads as under: “15. Encroachments on plan – marked details:- A plan-marked channel or pathway running in patta land is a Government land. 13. Learned counsel for the State, further contends that the 3rd respondent has power under the Revenue Board standing orders under No.15 to issue such direction, which reads as under: “15. Encroachments on plan – marked details:- A plan-marked channel or pathway running in patta land is a Government land. Eviction of encroachments in such lands need be invoked only in cases where the encroacher has interfered with the plan marked detail so as to close its entrance to and exit from his lands. In the case of pathways and cart tracks which have been used by the public till recently, the ryot should not be allowed to shift the course of the details to suit his own convenience. However, such diversions of plan marked channel from its original course, with a view to consolidate his holding or to facilitate irrigation of the portions which would be otherwise severed need not be treated as encroachment." 14. On consideration, I find that the contention of the learned counsel for the State is totally misconceived. The impugned order cannot be sustained in law. The Board Standing order No.15, does not give any jurisdiction to the 3rd respondent to issue direction to change the entries in the Revenue records, as the entries in Patta Pass Book can only be changed by following procedure under Tamilnadu Patta Pass Book Act. 15. The 3rd respondent in absence of any material or document of record showing the property to be cart path way, cannot issue such direction, to the Tahsildar to exercise quasi judicial powers u/s. 3 of Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, to make change in entries in patta pass book. 16. The remedy with the 3rd respondent was to file appropriate statutory application and with the Tahsildar for change of patta. Only on an application under Section 3 of the Act that Tahsildar could proceed in accordance with law, by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and taking note of the pendency of the civil suit on the same subject matter. 17. The statute does not make any difference, whether the applicant is citizen or is the State. 18. The Government officials are also bound to act as per Law, governing the change of entry in patta pass book. 17. The statute does not make any difference, whether the applicant is citizen or is the State. 18. The Government officials are also bound to act as per Law, governing the change of entry in patta pass book. The impugned order, therefore is totally without jurisdiction, and amounts to colourable exercise of power, which cannot be sustained in law, being hit by article 14 of the Constitution of India. 19. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside but with no order as to costs. 22.02.2012.