ORDER 1. The prayer of the petitioner, who has filed both the above writ petitions, in W.P. No.4558 of 2013 is for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent Tahsildar, Ariyalur District, to cancel patta No.588 relating to the lands in Survey No.152/7 issued in favour of the 3rd respondent and re-issue the patta in the name of the petitioner. 2. The prayer of the petitioner is per senot maintainable having regard to Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983 (in short 'Act) which provides that any person aggrieved by an order made by the Tahsildar under the Act may, within such period as may be prescribed, appeal to such authority as may be prescribed and the decision of such authority on such appeal shall subject to the provisions of Section 13, be final. As regards the appellate authority, Rule 14 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules, 1997, states that the Revenue Divisional Officer is the appellate authority to hear the appeal to be preferred under Section 12. Again, Section 13 contemplates further revision to the Revenue Divisional Officer either on the application of a party or in his own motion. Thus, when there is an appellate remedy available to the petitioner, this Court is of the view that he is not justified in rushing to this court invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, even though the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that already a representation has been preferred before the appellate authority/RDO, Ariyalur, and a direction may be issued for expeditious disposal of the same, this Court is not able to appreciate such submission in the absence of any proof filed or produced now to suggest that, in fact, such a representation/appeal has been preferred before the appellate authority. Learned Additional Government pleader submitted that there is no postal acknowledgement or copy of the representation said to have been received with the seal of the R.D.O. Office is available to substantiate the claim of the petitioner, however, if an appeal is preferred to the appellate authority by the petitioner, if he is so advised, the same will be considered and disposed of by the appellate authority. Recording the above submission of the learned Additional Government Pleader, by granting liberty to the petitioner to move an appeal before the authority concerned, if he is so advised, this Court dismisses the above writ petition. 3. Consequently, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the other writ petition in W.P. No.4559 of 2013 filed with a prayer to issue a direction for survey of the lands of the petitioner. He has also made an endorsement to that effect on the bundle. Permission is granted. W.P. No.4559 of 2013 is dismissed as withdrawn. Both the writ petitions are dismissed, accordingly. No costs.