JUDGMENT 1. It is brought to the notice of this Court that on behalf of the Respondents 2 to 8, the Petitioner had already instituted suit in O.S.No.190/2011 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pappireddipatty arraying one Kalyanasundaram and 3 others as defendants. A cursory perusal of the plaint filed by the Writ Petitioner/Plaintiff unerringly points out the Petitioner/plaintiff already instituted suit in O.S.No.190/2011 on the file of the trial Court seeking a relief of declaration that he has easementary right of way to take his cattle, vehicles, men etc., through the property described in Schedule B and perfected title to the same by prescription and of necessity and also sought a relief of permanent injunction against the defendants etc. 2. No counter has been filed by the Respondents 2 to 8. 3. It appears that W.P.No.34904/2012 has been filed before this Court on 29.12.2012. However, the plaint in O.S.No.190 of 2011 on the file of trial Court bears the date as 09.11.2011. Therefore, it is candidly clear that Petitioner had earlier filed the suit in O.S.No.190 of 2011 seeking necessary reliefs thereto and as stated supra. Later on only, he has projected the present Writ Petition. It is the case of the Petitioner that the First Respondent had not considered his petition dated 21.02.2012. Also that he had sent a remainder on 06.09.2012 to the First Respondent requesting him to take up the matter for an enquiry. But there appears to be inaction on the part of the Respondents. 4. It may not be out of place for this Court to make a significant mention that the Petitioner in his petition dated 21.02.2012 has only prayed for cancellation on assignment of land measuring 42 cents in survey No.76/1 in Devarajapalayam Village, Pappireddipatty Taluk, Dharmapuri District made in favour of one Kandasamy or to exclude 16 cents in possession and in his enjoyment from the assignment etc. 5. It also transpires that in para 11 of the plaint in O.S.No.190 of 2011 (filed by the Writ Petitioner/Plaintiff) there is a reference to the renumbering of suit as O.S.63 of 2008 etc. 5. It also transpires that in para 11 of the plaint in O.S.No.190 of 2011 (filed by the Writ Petitioner/Plaintiff) there is a reference to the renumbering of suit as O.S.63 of 2008 etc. At this stage, the Learned counsel for the Respondents 2 to 8 submits that the subject matter of property involved in the suit in O.S.No.190 of 2011 on the file of the trial Court filed by the Petitioner and the property concerned in Writ Petition is one and the same and therefore, it is pellucidly clear that the Petitioner has projected the present Writ Petition of Mandamus as a parallel proceedings before this Court after initiation of the suit being O.S.190 of 2011 on the file of the trial Court even otherwise the Petitioner has no enforceable legal right to project the present Writ of Mandamus, in the considered opinion of this Court. In short, this Court is of the considered view that proper course of action for the Petitioner/Plaintiff is to pursue his remedy before the trail Court where O.S.190 of 2011 is pending wherein, he has sought for a complete and comprehensive reliefs like declaration of easementary right of way, grant of permanent injunction etc. Looking at from any angle, the Writ Petition sans merits. 6. One cannot ignore an important fact that in regard to any cancellation of patta, if the Petitioner has got a remedy under the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass book Act, 1983 under Rules therein 1987 then it is for him to approach the Competent authority at the first instant namely, Tahsildar and if any order is passed by the Tahsildar, then it is open to the Petitioner to file necessary appeal and later on, to file revision before the appropriate authority as adumbrated under the Act. As such, even in regard to cancellation of patta, the Petitioner is to approach only the Competent Forum in the manner known to law and in accordance with law without availing an effective, viable, efficacious and alternative remedy, petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition which is nothing but an otiose one. 7. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 7. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. It is made clear that the dismissal of the Petition will not preclude the Petitioner to prosecute his available remedy before the competent Court in the manner known to law and in accordance with law.