Judgment 1. The petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition for a direction to the 3rd respondent to pass appropriate orders on his representations dated 20.03.2012 and 01.11.2012 as per due process of law. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this case are as follows: 2.1. The petitioner is a resident of Mangalam Village, Thirukalukkundram from 1973 onwards. His father was in possession of the property situated in Survey No.147/11B, which comes to an extent of 2.11 cents for more than two decades and after the lifetime of his father, the petitioner is enjoying peaceful possession of the said property till now. When the petitioner went to the office of the Tahsildar and made an application to furnish a copy of patta, he came to know that the 3rd respondent had mechanically issued patta in the name of the 4th respondent without conducting any enquiry and without summoning the petitioner for hearing, without considering the fact that the petitioner and his brother Sarangabani were in peaceful possession of the said property. 2.2. At that point of time, the petitioner and his brother Sarangabani gave a representation dated 02.04.2009 to the 2nd respondent, after the 3rd respondent wrongly issued Patta in the name of respondents 4 to 7. The 2nd respondent forwarded the 3rd respondent, proceedings in O.Mu.2001/2009P dated 26.06.2009, but the 3rd respondent did not take any steps on the above said proceedings. The petitioner subsequently sent a representation on 20.03.2012 and on 01.11.2012 to the 3rd respondent to restore the pattas wrongly issued in the name of respondents 4 to 7 and issue patta in the name of the petitioner and his brother Sarangabani. Despite several visits in person, as no appropriate orders were passed by the 3rd respondent for issuance of patta in the name of the petitioner, having no other efficacious alternative remedy, the petitioner is before this Court with the above Writ Petition. 3. Heard Mr. K. Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Dig Vijay Pandian, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Dr. C. Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. 4. 3. Heard Mr. K. Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Dig Vijay Pandian, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Dr. C. Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. 4. Though the petitioner has sought a limited relief of directing the 3rd respondent to pass appropriate orders on his representations dated 20.03.2012 and 01.11.2012 as per due process of law, a reading of the said representations would reveal that there is a Civil dispute between the parties. 5. The Supreme Court in the case of P.R. Murlidharan v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar reported in (2006) 4 SCC 501 has held that jurisdiction under Article 226 would remain effective and meaningful only when it is exercised prudently and in appropriate situation, and writ of mandamus cannot be sought for, especially when determination of the questions involved did not merely involve interpretation of documents alone, but require adducing of oral evidence, and writ proceedings cannot be a substitute for a civil suit. 6. Also in the decisions reported in AIR 1976 SC 475 (Arya Vyasa Sabha and Others v. Commissioner of Hindu Charitable and Religious Institutions & Endowments, Hyderabad and Others); AIR 2003 SC 1060 (Rourkela Shramik Sangh v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. And Another); (2001) 7 SCC 1 (Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers); (2006) 9 SCC 256 (Himmat Singh v. State of Haryana and Others); (2007) 7 MLJ 687 (Food Corporation of India v. Harmesh Chand); 2005 (5) CTC 695 (SC) (S.D.O. Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. v. Timudu Oram) etc., the Honourable Supreme Court held that disputed facts cannot be decided in writ petition and parties can approach the appropriate forum. 7. Following the above decisions, this Court in the case of A. Asirul Fasil vs. The District Revenue Officer and others decided in W.P(MD)No.12676 of 2011 on 04.04.2014, has held as under: 11. It is not in dispute that there is a dispute as to the title of the property between the petitioner and fourth respondent and the subsequent purchasers. This Court cannot go into the title disputes regarding title under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court can interfere only if the respondents 1 to 3 have not followed the procedures prescribed under the Patta Pass Book Act and the Board Standing orders and also when the order is shocking to the conscience. This Court cannot go into the title disputes regarding title under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court can interfere only if the respondents 1 to 3 have not followed the procedures prescribed under the Patta Pass Book Act and the Board Standing orders and also when the order is shocking to the conscience. Hence this court is not inclined to go into title claims of the parties. 35. Admittedly, in the instant case on hand, there is a serious dispute with regard to the title of lands measuring an extent of 7.18 acres in S.F.Nos.547 and 548, Kalapatti Village, Coimbatore District. In cases of this nature, it is not open to the Revenue Authorities, much less the First Respondent/District Revenue Officer, to decide the same. In Civil Law, when there is a dispute between the rival parties touching upon the title to the property, the competent forum would be only the Civil Court. ... " 8. In similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vishwas Footwear Company Ltd. vs. The District Collector and others reported in (2012) 1 MLJ 566 , has held as under: 18. As far as the power of this Court to entertain a writ petition on disputed questions, we may refer to the following decisions of the Supreme Court in Arya Vysya Sabha and others v. The Commissioner of Hindu Charitable and Religious Institutions & Endowments , Hyderabad and others, (1976) 1 SCC 292 , Rourkela Shramik Sangh v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., and another, (2003) 4 SCC 317 and Himmat Singh v. State of Haryana and others, (2006) 9 SCC 256 . Therefore, when disputed questions are involved, this Court will not entertain the writ petition and adjudicate upon such dispute, as it is for the parties to approach the civil Court to decide the issue. ...” 9. In view of the above decisions of the Honourable Apex Court and this Court and taking note of the facts and circumstances of this case, it is for the parties to go before the appropriate court of jurisdiction for redressal of their grievance in accordance with law. 10. Therefore, this Writ Petition is not maintainable in the light of involvement of a civil dispute. However, we direct the parties to move the concerned court of civil jurisdiction, if they so desire. 10. Therefore, this Writ Petition is not maintainable in the light of involvement of a civil dispute. However, we direct the parties to move the concerned court of civil jurisdiction, if they so desire. This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction and observation. No costs.