Judgment 1. The prayer in this writ petition is as follows: The petitioner herein is seeking for a mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 to 3 herein from hastily issuing Assignment Patta in favour of the fourth respondent in respect of Government Poramboke (Kalam Poramboke) comprised in S.No.2/9 (0.40.0 Ares) in Nattarmangalam, H/o.Siruvathur Village, Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District by ignoring the valuable objections throughout made by the petitioner herein in this regard including on 4.7.2005 and 8.7.2005 to respondents 2 and 3 herein and without passing a speaking order touching all the merits therein involved. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the property which is sought to be assigned in favour of the fourth respondent is a 'Kalam Poramboke' meant for the common use by the villagers. It appears that when an attempt was made earlier to assign the said property in favour of the fourth respondent, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.8067 of 2002 wherein an order came to be passed on 23.02.2002, directing him to submit objections to the respondents 1 to 3 therein within two weeks and the respondents shall consider the objections of the petitioner before assigning the land and pass orders thereafter. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that in pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the above writ petition, he submitted his representation to the respondents in the month of April 2002 and again on 27.03.2003, 27.12.2003 and 02.08.2004. It is stated by the petitioner that in all the above said representations, he has specifically made complaint about the encroachment made by the fourth respondent. Without passing any orders on the petitioner's representations, the District Collector of Villupuram District shifted the matter at the hands of the first respondent. The fourth respondent was prevailing over the Revenue Authorities for getting assignment of the said land. If such assignment is given, it would affect the interest of the petitioner. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed before this Court. 4. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit and contended that the subject matter land has been classified as 'Kalam Poramboke' and the entire extent is not used as Kalam and three persons have encroached to the extent of 0.06.5 hectares and the remaining extent of 0.24.5 hectares is lying vacant. 4. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit and contended that the subject matter land has been classified as 'Kalam Poramboke' and the entire extent is not used as Kalam and three persons have encroached to the extent of 0.06.5 hectares and the remaining extent of 0.24.5 hectares is lying vacant. It is also stated by the second respondent that the Panchayat President of Esandai has resolved on 09.08.2001 and 24.01.2011 and given no objection to grant patta in favour of the fourth respondent. However, it is stated that the patta has not been granted in favour of the fourth respondent in view of the interim order granted by this Court. The fourth respondent also filed a counter affidavit and claimed his right to get patta in respect of the subject matter land. 5. Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side. 6. The only issue in this writ petition is with regard to the grant of patta or assignment in favour of the fourth respondent in respect of a land which is called as "Kalam Poramboke". 7. According to the petitioner, it is meant for common use to the villagers and it cannot be assigned in favour of the fourth respondent. On the other hand, it is claimed by the fourth respondent that he is entitled to get patta as the said land is not used as 'kalam poramboke'. Whatever may be the rival contentions of the parties, as on date, no order is passed by the second respondent based on the objections said to have been filed by the petitioner in pursuant to the disposal of the earlier writ petition. No doubt, it is stated in the counter affidavit by the second respondent that no objection was filed by the petitioner within the time stipulated by this court. In any event, as no order is passed on the subject matter land, the parties may not be in a position to canvas the correctness or otherwise of the action of the original authority before the appellate authority or any other appropriate forum. 8. Therefore, without going into the merits and rival contentions of the parties, I only direct the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the second respondent within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by ventilating all his grievances in respect of the said land. 8. Therefore, without going into the merits and rival contentions of the parties, I only direct the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the second respondent within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by ventilating all his grievances in respect of the said land. If any such representation is made within the time stipulated herein, it is for the second respondent to consider the same and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks thereafter. Needless to say that before passing such order, the affected parties including the fourth respondent shall be given due opportunity of hearing and thereafter, the order shall be passed by the second respondent as stated supra. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.