JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Declaration, declaring the action of the third respondent in passing the resolution, in Resolution No.164, dated 8.10.2012, cancelling the earlier resolution, in Resolution No.108, dated 9.11.2005, is illegal, as it is in violation of the relevant rules and the principles of natural justice. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the property situated at old survey No.72/13 and new survey No.128/1B, at No.11, Podaturpet village, Pallipet Taluk, Thiruvalur District, belongs to the petitioner and his family members. As such, the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property, by raising manavari crops and paying the kist relating to the said land, to the Government. Further, the grandfather of the petitioner had also obtained a panchayat plan approval from the second respondent, for the construction of a house in the said property, vide proceedings, dated 19.8.1983. 4. While so, it has been stated that, by a resolution passed by the third respondent panchayat, dated 9.11.2005, in resolution No.108, the possession of the property in question had been resolved to be returned to the petitioner. However, by a resolution, dated 8.10.2012, in resolution No.164, the third respondent had cancelled the earlier resolution, dated 9.11.2005, contrary to the procedures established by law and the principles of natural justice. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent had submitted that the petitioner had filed a civil suit, in O.S.No.40 of 2011, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pallipattu, for declaring the title of the petitioner, in respect of the property in question. He had also filed an interlocutory application in the said suit, wherein the third respondent has been impleaded as a party, for restraining the respondents in the said interlocutory application from interfering with the peaceful possession and occupation of the property in question, by the petitioner. He had also filed an interlocutory application in the said suit, wherein the third respondent has been impleaded as a party, for restraining the respondents in the said interlocutory application from interfering with the peaceful possession and occupation of the property in question, by the petitioner. In such circumstances, this Court may be pleased to dismiss the present writ petition, filed by the petitioner, as it is open to the petitioner to seek his remedy before the civil Court concerned, in the pending suit, in O.S.No.40 of 2011. 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the relief prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition, cannot be granted by this Court, invoking its writ jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as it is an admitted fact that the petitioner had filed a civil suit, in O.S.No.40 of 2011, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pallipattu, and the said suit is pending adjudication. 7. It is also not in dispute that an interlocutory application had also been filed by the petitioner, in the said suit, restraining the third respondent from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner, in respect of the property in question. 8. As such, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, it would be open to the petitioner to seek his remedy, before the civil Court concerned, in the pending suit, in O.S.No.40 of 2011. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2012 is closed.