Judgment :- The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition praying to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to maintain the character of SF.No.194 Vengaikurichi Village in Manapparai Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District as "Kulam" (Water body). 2. According to the petitioner, the land in survey SF.No.194 of Vengaikurichi Village, Manapparai Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District is a water body. His father owned the said land. The petitioner and his brother are still owning about 94 cents of land in the Kulam. While so, the sixth respondent claiming to be exclusive owner of 44 cents in the said Kulam gifted the same to the respondents 3 and 4. The respondents 3 and 4 are putting up a construction for the School building. The petitioner has given a representation dated 22.09.2010 to the respondents 1 to 5. The respondents did not pass any orders on the representation. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition to direct the respondents to maintain the character of the Kulam. 3. The writ petition is of the year 2010, the respondents have not filed any counter. The respondents 3,5 & 6 have not appeared either in person or through the counsel. 4. When the matter was taken up for the hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was also issued patta in the same survey No.194 and he is in possession of the water body. 5. Even according to the petitioner 25 persons are owners of said land in question and patta has been issued to them. According to the petitioner, in FMB sketch the property in question has been mentioned as Naicker Perumal Kulam. But in 'A' Register it has been wrongly mentioned as Ryotwari Punjai and patta was issued in the name of petitioner and 246. others. 6. When 25 persons are shown as owners and Joint patta has been issued to them one of the pattadar namely the sixth respondent cannot gift 44 cents to respondents 3 & 4 without partition and demarcating specific share of 25 pattatars no one can gift any portion of property in question. 7. This Court cannot decide whether classification in 'A' register is correct or classification in FMB sketch is correct. If aggrieved by the classification in 'A' Register the petitioner has to approach the Revenue Officials for re-classification. 8. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. 7. This Court cannot decide whether classification in 'A' register is correct or classification in FMB sketch is correct. If aggrieved by the classification in 'A' Register the petitioner has to approach the Revenue Officials for re-classification. 8. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. It is open to the petitioner to send a fresh representation for redressal of his grievance for reclassification of the property. No costs. Consequently, M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2010 is also closed.