Judgment : 1. By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the time of admission itself. Mr. M. Rajarajan, the learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 3. The petitioner is the great grandson of one Vellaisamy who is said to have gifted 2 cents of land in S.No.154/4D situates at Devandatavu Village, in favour of the Panchayat Union for digging a bore well to facilitate the irrigation. In this regard, the petitioner's great grandfather executed a registered gift deed dated 03.03.2008 vide document No.842/2008 in favour of the first respondent on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Devakottai. From the copy of the gift deed, it is seen that the total extent, which was gifted is 17 cents, in S.No.154/4D. 4. It is the petitioner's further case that his great grandfather cancelled the gift deed by document dated 25.06.2013, registered as document No.2800 of 2014 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Devakottai. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the gift deed has already been cancelled, the question of transferring the patta in favour of the Panchayat Union does not arise. Therefore, the petitioner issued a legal notice dated 11.06.2014 to the first respondent calling upon the first respondent to restore the property in favour of the petitioner within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice, failing which, criminal or civil proceedings will be taken against the first respondent. With these proceedings, the petitioner is before this Court to quash the patta issued in favour of the Panchayat Union. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, by placing reliance on the decision in case of Vishwas Footwear Company Limited, A-2, Third Phase, Guindy Industrial Estate, Chennai-32, rep. By Director, V.Ravi Vs The District Collector, Kancheepuram, reported in 2011 (5) CTC 94 submitted that when there is a disputed question of fact regarding the title of an immovable property, the only remedy open is to adjudicate the same before the competent civil Court and the Revenue authorities are not entitled to interfere with the same. 7. It is noted that the gift deed was executed in favour of the first respondent Panchayat. The donor is not the petitioner, whereas the great grandson of the donor has come before this Court. 7. It is noted that the gift deed was executed in favour of the first respondent Panchayat. The donor is not the petitioner, whereas the great grandson of the donor has come before this Court. Based on the gift deed said to be executed by the donor, the property became vested with the donee, who is the first respondent Panchayat. Subsequently, the patta has also been transferred in the name of the Panchayat Union/donee. Later, the donor cancelled the said gift deed by virtue of the cancellation deed dated 25.06.2013. Further, in the said cancellation deed, the donee is not a party. 8. Therefore, prima facie, I am of the view that the cancellation of gift deed is not sustainable in law and the same cannot be adjudicated in this writ petition. If at all, the petitioner has got any grievance, which this Court seriously doubts, because, he is not the donor, he can contest the same in the competent civil Court. Therefore, no relief could be granted in this writ petition and the writ petition is thoroughly misconceived and the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P.(md).No.1 and 2 of 2014 are closed. No costs.