Judgment :- 1. No representation for the petitioner. This Writ Petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to restore compound wall belonging to the petitioner, said to have been demolished by the fifth respondent, on 14.02.2009, or in the alternative to direct the respondents to bear the cost of construction of the compound wall, by the petitioner. 2. A counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the fourth respondent stating that the petitioner had constructed the compound wall in question encroaching upon the land belonging to the Highways Department to a length of 200 feet. Therefore, after following necessary procedures, the revenue officials had taken steps to remove the encroachments, as the land in question was necessary for the widening of the Dindigul to Palani State Highways. The Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 3. In view of the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the fourth respondent, this Court is of the considered view that the present Writ Petition is not maintainable. From the records available, it has been found that the petitioner had encroached upon the land belonging to the Highways Department and had put up a compound wall. After following the necessary procedures, including the making of announcements to remove the encroachment, by way of 'Tom Tom', the compound wall, said to have been constructed by the petitioner, had been demolished for the widening of the Dindigul to Palani State Highways. In fact, the Writ Petitioner is not in a position to prove, by sufficient evidence that the land in question, wherein he had put up the compound wall, had belonged to him. Even otherwise, the petitioner ought to have approach the civil Court to claim his right, in respect of the land in question. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.