Order (R. Mahadevan, J.) 1. W.P(MD)No.11607 of 2013 has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records from the second respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.828/2013/jp1 dated 28.05.2013 and quash the same and consequently, restrain the respondents, their men, agents or anyone representing on behalf of them from in any way disturbing the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of her property in Survey No.97/20, situated at Seemaanathu Village, Usilampatti, Madurai District. 2. W.P(MD)No.11871 of 2014 has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1/2014 dated 15.07.2014 and quash the same as illegal. 3. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of both these writ petitions, are as follows: 3.1. The petitioner in W.P(MD)No.11607 of 2013, had purchased the property in S.No.97/20 to an extent of 6 1/2 cents and 11 1/2 cents, totalling 18 cents at Seemanuthu Village, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District, from one V.Eswaran. The fifth respondent herein was the original owner of the said property and he executed a gift settlement dated 19.01.2011 in favour of his son Pandi and his wife Jayalakshmi. In the said gift settlement, it had been mentioned that the settlement holder and the subsequent purchasers, would have the right over the pathway lying in the said property (east west 20 X 15 ft). According to her, it is a private pathway. However, the fifth respondent had executed a sale deed in favour of the fourth respondent, and thereby, relinguished the right over the said pathway in S.No.97/20. Therefore, the petitioner along with his brother filed a suit in O.S.No.117 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Usilampatti, seeking declaration of the sale deed executed by the fifth respondent as null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the respondents 4 and 5. Meanwhile, the petitioner came to know that the second respondent, in his proceedings dated 28.05.2013, directed the third respondent to remove the encroachments made in S.No.97/20. It is alleged by the petitioner that such proceedings came to be passed without even giving any notice to the petitioner. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 3.2. Meanwhile, the petitioner came to know that the second respondent, in his proceedings dated 28.05.2013, directed the third respondent to remove the encroachments made in S.No.97/20. It is alleged by the petitioner that such proceedings came to be passed without even giving any notice to the petitioner. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 3.2. The fourth respondent in W.P(MD)No.11607 of 2013, has filed the writ petition in W.P (MD)No.11871 of 2014, seeking to quash the order passed by the second respondent dated 15.07.2014. It is the case of the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.11871 of 2014, that his family owned the lands in S.Nos.97/15, 97/13, 97/12, 11, 10, 8, 29, 7, 6, 5 and 2B admeasuring 8 Acres, of Mamarathupatti, Seemanathu village, Usilampatti Taluk and the third respondent herein (the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.11607 of 2013), is the owner of the part of land in S.No.97/20, wherein, there is a pathway. The third respondent, however, erected a barbed wire fence and thereby, denied the access to the lands of the petitioner herein. The Tahsildar, Usilampatti, by his proceedings, dated 21.05.2013, directed that the local body has to resolve the dispute regarding roads and pathways. Despite the same, the third respondent had not removed the said fence. Thereafter, the first respondent, by his order dated 28.05.2013, directed to remove the encroachment made in S.No.97/20 and pursuant to the same, the said fence made by the third respondent herein, had been removed and the said pathway has been put into use. Aggrieved over the order of the first respondent, dated 28.05.2013, the third respondent herein, filed W.P (MD)No.11607 of 2013. 4. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for all the parties and perused the materials available on record. 5. This Court, by order dated 19.07.2013, in M.P(MD)No.2 of 2013 in W.P(MD)No.11607 of 2013, granted an order of interim stay as prayed for. However, the respondents 4 and 5 in W.P (MD)No.11607 of 2013, filed M.P(MD)No.3 of 2013, seeking to vacate the said order of interim stay and this Court, taking into consideration of the facts that the alleged encroachment had already been removed by the President, Seemanuthu Village Panchayat, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District and suppressing the same, the petitioner had obtained such order of interim stay and is blocking the pathway, modified the order of interim stay into one of 'status quo as on today'. 6. 6. The grievance of the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.11607 of 2013, is that the alleged encroachments made in S.No.97/20 had been removed without giving any notice to her. Whereas it is the claim of the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.11871 of 2014 that the pathway which had been used by him, was encroached upon by the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.11607 of 2013. 7. A reading of the order impugned in W.P(MD)No.11871 of 2014 would show that the alleged encroachments had been removed illegally, without giving any notice to the petitioner in W.P (MD)No.11607 of 2013 and therefore, she was given permission to restore the earlier position. 8. In view of the same, the relief sought for by the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.11607 of 2013 has been met with by the authorities concerned and therefore, W.P(MD)No.11607 of 2013, is closed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. No costs. 9. Insofar as the relief sought for by the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.11871 of 2014, is concerned, it is for him to adjudicate his right over the said pathway in S.No.97/20 before the competent civil forum and hence, the writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, W.P(MD)No.11871 of 2014, is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed. No costs.