JUDGMENT : 1. This Writ Petition has been filed praying for a Mandamus to direct the respondents not to enter the property of the petitioner in S.F.No.365/1 at Kannanur Village, Thuraiyur Taluk, Trichy District and undertake any excavation work for the purpose of construction of any sump and overhead tank in the property except by recourse to the suitable provisions of law. 2. According to the petitioner, he has purchased the property in Kannanur Village in Natham S.F.No.365/1 through the registered sale deed dated 24.12.2011. A portion of the said property in the same survey number has also been purchased in the name of the petitioner's daughter-in-law on the very same date. Even though it is purchased in the name of daughter-in-law, it is stated that the petitioner is the owner of the property in question. He would contend that his earlier vendor namely one N. Mani had earlier filed a suit in O.S.No.129 of 1997 on the file of the District Muns if Court, Thuraiyur, against the Government for declaration and injunction in respect of the property and obtained a decree in his favour and the appeal preferred by the Government was also dismissed and subsequently, he has purchased the said property under the strength of the Civil Court decree. 3. According to the petitioner, the third respondent herein, namely, the Tamil Nadu Water and Drainage Board has no legal right to enter the property in question. But they have entered upon the property on 04.08.2014 to have a soil test and dug up pits in several parts of the property in question. He would further contend that earlier he filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.10681 of 2014 before this Court to consider the representation made by the petitioner on 01.05.2014. The said Writ Petition came to be dispose of on 08.07.2014 to consider the representation of the petitioner. Prior to that, his predecessor, namely, the said Mani had filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.2385 of 2009 to issue patta in his name for the property in question. The said Writ Petition was also ordered on 15.04.2009. Even then it was not considered by the respondents, the petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition for the relief stated supra. 4. According to the petitioner, once it is a Natham land, it does not vest with the Government. The said Writ Petition was also ordered on 15.04.2009. Even then it was not considered by the respondents, the petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition for the relief stated supra. 4. According to the petitioner, once it is a Natham land, it does not vest with the Government. But the authorities without following the rules have entered into the property and have started excavation work to construct a sump. 5. The fifth respondent has filed a counter and vacate stay petition. In the counter, it is stated that the land was never in possession and enjoyment of the petitioner or his predecessor in title. Though the land is classified as 'natham' in the up-dating registry, the land in question was classified as 'Village Natham' and further it was classified as 'Government poramboke'. When the petitioner attempted to fence the property on 04.08.2014, the villagers objected to it and a tense situation prevailed over there. Thereafter, the petitioner returned back without even fencing the land. Earlier Writ Petitions were filed only for a Mandamus to consider the representation. As far as the civil suits are concerned, the said Mani had filed the civil suit. In fact, the said suit has nothing to do with the petitioner as the properties was classified as Government poramboke. It is also pertinent to mention that earlier in the years 2009 and 2014, Writ Petitions were filed for grant of patta and the same was considered and rejected by the respondents in the proceedings in Roc.A1.4272/2014 dated 25.08.2014. Further, if the petitioner is aggrieved over the settlement under up-dating registry, he has got the liberty to approach District Revenue Officer. Without doing so, he has come forward with the present Writ Petition. Eventually, he seeks for the dismissal of the Writ Petition. 6. In the counter to the vacate stay petition, the petitioner has reiterated the points raised by him in the Writ Petition. 7. Heard both sides. 8. The only point which has been raised by the Writ Petitioner is that his predecessor-in-title had filed a civil suit where a declaration and title has been granted as against the Government, which has been upheld by the appellate court also. Therefore, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property. 7. Heard both sides. 8. The only point which has been raised by the Writ Petitioner is that his predecessor-in-title had filed a civil suit where a declaration and title has been granted as against the Government, which has been upheld by the appellate court also. Therefore, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property. He would further contend that his earlier request for grant of patta for the property in question has not been considered sofar inspite of a direction of this Court. Now the respondents have encroached the property and digging up the property for putting up sump. 9. When this Court peruses the Civil Court decree which has been filed by one Mani, which is in respect of Survey No.365/1. In the said suit, there are two private individuals. The suit was decreed exparte. Of course, the Government has preferred the appeal, which was also dismissed. The petitioner has produced the sale deed. From the sale deed, the survey number mentioned as UDR Natham Survey is No.689/34. The petitioner herein in the Writ Petition has given the survey No.365/1. Further, in the recital of the sale deed, it is stated that the patta in respect of the property is directed to be transferred in the name of the petitioner. The original patta granted in the name of the petitioner's predecessor has not been produced nor he asked for transfer of patta. Whereas, his allegations is that though he has asked for a fresh patta, inspite of a direction of this Court, it has not been considered. 10. Further, in respect of the another portion of the land, admittedly, he is not the owner and only his daughter-in-law is the real owner. But, in the affidavit he claims that he is the owner of the property. There cannot be beenami transaction in such type of cases. Therefore, he cannot maintain this Writ Petition insofar as the land owned by his daughter-in-law. Even in respect of the property claims to be the property of daughter-in-law, the survey number differs. Further, in this case, for the old survey number and for the new survey number, there is no correlation made in the sale deed registered in favour of the petitioner. All along he emphasized the fact that the request for grant of patta was not considered by the respondents. Further, in this case, for the old survey number and for the new survey number, there is no correlation made in the sale deed registered in favour of the petitioner. All along he emphasized the fact that the request for grant of patta was not considered by the respondents. Whereas, in the counter it has been clearly stated that the request of the petitioner was considered and rejected by the respondents through his proceedings No.Roc.A1.4272/2014 dated 25.08.2014. Therefore, at best, he can challenge the rejection order. Without challenging the said proceedings, the present Writ Petition is not maintainable. 11. In the counter affidavit, it is categorically stated that though the land in question initially it was considered as Natham, in the up-dating registry, it was classified as Government poramboke land. Therefore, at that point of time, the petitioner was not the owner of the land nor the predecessor has not challenged the said fact. Having failed in all attempts both by his predecessor and the petitioner, the theory of subsequent purchase will not arise. Inspite of all the above things, the petitioner has himself admitted in the affidavit in paragraph No.10 to the effect that the Government has already entered into the possession in question on 04.08.2014 and started digging up in several parts and done excavation works also for putting up sump for the villagers. In fact, the Government is going to use the property in question for the public purpose and the petitioner cannot challenge the same once he is not possession of the property and the request for patta has already been rejected by the competent authority. The rulings cited by the petitioner to state that for the Natham property the Government has no say will not be applicable for the facts and circumstances of the case since in the counter affidavit it is specifically averred that it is Government poramboke. 12. In the light of the above said findings, this Writ Petition is also not maintainable and even direction to consider cannot be given, as what cannot be considered cannot be directed to be considered, as per the Division Bench judgment of this Court, which is extracted below:- 12.1. The Supreme Court in the case of A.P.SRTC Vs. G. Srinivas Reddy, reported in (2006) 3 SCC 674 = 2006-3-L.W.170, had observed as follows:- “19. The Supreme Court in the case of A.P.SRTC Vs. G. Srinivas Reddy, reported in (2006) 3 SCC 674 = 2006-3-L.W.170, had observed as follows:- “19. There are also several instances where unscrupulous petitioners with the connivance of "pliable" authorities have misused the direction "to consider" issued by court. We may illustrate by an example. A claim, which is stale, time- barred or untenable, is put forth in the form of a representation. On the ground that the authority has not disposed of the representation within a reasonable time, the person making the representation approaches the High Court with an innocuous prayer to direct the authority to "consider" and dispose of the representation. When the court disposes of the petition with a direction to "consider", the authority grants the relief, taking shelter under the order of the court directing him to1.75" "consider" the grant of relief. Instances are also not wanting where authorities, unfamiliar with the process and practice relating to writ proceedings and the nuances of judicial review, have interpreted or understood the order "to consider" as directing grant of relief sought in the representation and consequently granting reliefs which otherwise could not have been granted. Thus, action of the authorities granting undeserving relief, in pursuance of orders to "consider", may be on account of ignorance, or on account of bona fide belief that they should grant relief in view of the court's direction to "consider" the claim, or on account of collusion/connivance between the person making the representation and the authority deciding it. Representations of daily-wagers seeking regularization /absorption into regular service is a species of cases, where there has been a large-scale misuse of the orders "to consider". 13. Following the Apex Court's judgment cited supra, a Division Bench of this Court, in M. Ingaci Vs. The Commissioner, Devakottai & Others, reported in 2010-2-L.W.785, wherein, it has been observed that what cannot be considered that cannot be directed to be considered by this Court. In the said judgment, in para 8, it is observed as follows:- 8. Why we are extracting this judgment in such detail is that we should be aware of the consequences of our order when we direct the authorities to "consider". In the said judgment, in para 8, it is observed as follows:- 8. Why we are extracting this judgment in such detail is that we should be aware of the consequences of our order when we direct the authorities to "consider". In the aforesaid situation, if the learned Judge, before directing the authorities to consider, had heard the petitioner herein, then the order of the Division Bench reprimanding the 5th respondent would have been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. Some time, we also come across cases where our directions is to an authority who cannot really pass an effective order and the effective order can only be passed by an authority superior to the one to whom we issue directions. Obviously, when the order is not complied with, since it cannot be complied with because of the hierarchy discipline, the officer has to face the contempt. All these can be avoided if we only bear in mind the guidelines given in the above case by the Supreme Court before we direct the respondent to "consider and pass orders". In the light of the discussion and observation, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.