JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer of issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 06.10.2007 and pass orders thereon. 2. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that the agricultural punja land falling in Survey No.128/4 measuring 0.98 acres at No.138, Koozhankalacherry Village, Serpanancherry Firka, Sriperumpudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District and other properties were under the ownership of one Thiru.Mannar Naidu, since the date of purchase, he was in possession of the property. 3. In the year 1948, he executed a Will dated 29.11.1948 bequeathing a portion of the property in favour of his three minor daughters. That after the death of some of the legal heirs, the property devolved upon Santhanammal, who enjoyed the property as absolute owner. 4. The said Santhanammal executed a General Power of Attorney dated 03.04.2006 and appointed one K.E. Balakrishnan as her power agent to sell the property, who sold the property to one Mr. R. Srinivasan, S/o. Radhakrishnan, on 07.08.2006. 5. Since the date of purchase, Thiru. R. Srinivasan was in possession and enjoyment of the land. Thiru R. Srinivasan sold the property to the petitioner vide sale deed dated 10.05.2007. The petitioner, therefore, claims to be the absolute owner and in possession of the property falling in Survey No.128/4 measuring 0.98 acres. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that he approached the local Village Administrative Officer for payment of kist and for obtaining Patta in his favour. The petitioner was informed that in the revenue record, the patta of the land stands in the name of Minor Mathivanan, Minor Dhanraj, represented through their mother Usha and A.M. Basheer. 7. It is submitted that the petitioner, on enquiry, came to know that certain fraudulent documents were created in favour of these minors. 8. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the entry in the revenue record, filed a representation to respondent Nos.1 and 2 and has approached this Court. 9. The writ petition, as framed, is totally misconceived. The petitioner has no legal right to maintain writ of mandamus for disposing of representation, as it is only a statutory representation, for which writ of mandamus can be issued for its disposal. 10. 9. The writ petition, as framed, is totally misconceived. The petitioner has no legal right to maintain writ of mandamus for disposing of representation, as it is only a statutory representation, for which writ of mandamus can be issued for its disposal. 10. The writ of mandamus, as framed, is not competent, as the entries in the patta passbook are governed by the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook, 1983, which lays down the procedure for recording of the patta and any change to be made thereafter. 11. The Collector does not figure in the statute book for deciding the question of patta, and the Tahsildar can only act on the application, if it is filed under Section 3, in a statutory form, as provided under the Rules. 12. The petitioner should have approached the competent authorities for getting the necessary corrections by availing statutory remedy under the Act. The disputed questions in the writ petition, regarding the legality of the documents, etc. in favour of minors recorded as owners, also cannot be gone into in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The allegation of forgery, etc. are required to be proved by leading evidence. 13. The writ petition being totally misconceived, therefore, is ordered to be dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.