Judgment :- The first petitioner submits that he and the petitioners 2 to 5 are agreement holders. He submits that when his father was alive, he purchased the lands situated in S.Nos.3014 and 3015, Kaliyal Village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District to the extent of 275 acres from one Louis under registered sale deed in Document No.1498, dated 07.11.1985. After purchase of the said lands, his father was in possession and enjoyment and after the demise of his father, his family members are in possession and enjoyment of the said lands without any interference from any corner. But in the year 1990, the Forest Officials made an attempt to interfere with their land claiming that they are owners of the said land. They made request before the Forest Officials to produce any records or documents to prove that the above said land is belonging to Forest Department, but they were not able to produce any records to prove that lands are forest lands. The first petitioner further submits that his father made an application before the Revenue Officials in the year 1994 to survey and mark the boundaries of the above said lands. After receipt of the said representation, the District Collector sent communication on 17.02.1994 to the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Nagercoil to inspect the above said land and measure the said land and submit his report before the Revenue Officials. Accordingly, on 08.07.1994, the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records inspected their lands in the presence of Revenue and Forest Officials and he submitted his report confirming the title of the lands and marked the boundaries in favour of his father Das Nadar and further recommended to issue patta in the name of his father. 2. The petitioner further submits that even though the Assistant Director submitted his detailed report on 08.07.1994, the revenue officials did not issue any patta. The petitioner further submits that they came to understand that Forest Officials prevented the revenue officials from issuing patta. In the said circumstances, they approached this Court and filed writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.16815 of 2013, by directing the revenue officials to survey and mark boundaries and grant patta in favour of them in respect of the above said lands. The petitioner further submits that they came to understand that Forest Officials prevented the revenue officials from issuing patta. In the said circumstances, they approached this Court and filed writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.16815 of 2013, by directing the revenue officials to survey and mark boundaries and grant patta in favour of them in respect of the above said lands. When the above writ petition came up before this Court on 22.10.2013, this Court was pleased to pass orders, whereby, it directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vilavancode and Tahsildar, Vilavancode to implement the earlier order passed by the District Collector, dated 17.02.1994 within three months. Even after receipt of the copy of the order of the Court, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vilavancode and Tahsildar, Vilavancode were not inclined to survey and mark the boundaries and issue patta. When they enquired with them, they came to understand that the respondents are preventing the revenue officials from survey and marking of boundaries in respect of lands situated in S.Nos.3014 and 3015 , Kaliyal Village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District to the extent of 275 acres. Hence, the revenue officials are not in a position to survey and mark boundaries. 3. The first petitioner further submits that they made written representation to the respondents higher officials, viz., the Principal Conservator of Forest, Guindy, Chennai and the Director of Survey and Settlement, Chepauk, Chennai on 10.02.2014, but no order has been passed by the said officials, but on the other hand, the respondents are preventing the revenue officials and the petitioners from survey and marking of boundaries of the petitioners lands situated in S.Nos.3014 and 3015 of Kaliyal Village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District to the extent of 275 acres. Hence, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition. 4. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit and submits that the father of the petitioner has filed a claim of patta for an extent of 275 acres in Old S.No.3015 and 11 acres in Old S.No.3014 of Kaliyal Village Village before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai on 20.02.1986. The claim was based on a grant said to have been made by Maharaja of Travancore in favour of one Mathan Kani and sale deed said to have been executed by Mathan Kani in favour of C.Das. The claim was rejected by the Assistant Settlement Officer on 25.04.1988. The claim was based on a grant said to have been made by Maharaja of Travancore in favour of one Mathan Kani and sale deed said to have been executed by Mathan Kani in favour of C.Das. The claim was rejected by the Assistant Settlement Officer on 25.04.1988. Aggrieved by the order, C.Das filed a revision petition on 03.06.1988 before the Director of Survey and Settlement, Chennai. The revision petition was rejected on 02.03.1992. Again C.Das filed a revision petition before the Commissioner of Land Administration on 20.04.1992 which was also dismissed on 05.01.2004. While the matter was pending disposal before the Settlement Authorities, C.Das filed writ petition in W.P.No.13144 of 1986 before the High Court, Madras. The petition was dismissed on 04.12.1986 and the Court granted interim injunction for four months and directed the petitioner to seek remedy through a regular Civil Court. Accordingly, he filed a suit in O.S.No.198/1987 before the Sub Court, Kuzhithurai claiming title to an extent of 275 acres in Old S.No.3015 of Kaliyal Village. The suit was dismissed for default on 23.01.1992 and restored again and the suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 28.04.1992. Thiru C.Das then filed a suit in O.S.No.2 of 1992 before the Vacation Civil Judge claiming title to an extent of 328.53 acres comprised in old S.No.3015 of Kaliyal Village. The suit survey number is old survey No.3015. But as per the boundaries stated in the plaint the schedule property forms part of Kilamalai Reserved Forests and not Old Survey No.3015. The suit was transferred to the Sub Court, Kuzhithurai and was renumbered as O.S.No.47 of 92. He filed two petitions in I.A.No.435 of 1993 and 436 of 1993 for permission to cut and remove the trees standing in the property (1996 teak plantation raised by the Forest Department) and seeking police protection during the removal. He also filed a writ petition in W.P.No.19438 of 1993 before this Court with the same prayer and the same was dismissed on 03.03.1994 as withdrawn. At the request of C.Das the case was transferred to the Sub Court, Nagercoil and renumbered as O.S.No.257/94. He also filed a writ petition in W.P.No.19438 of 1993 before this Court with the same prayer and the same was dismissed on 03.03.1994 as withdrawn. At the request of C.Das the case was transferred to the Sub Court, Nagercoil and renumbered as O.S.No.257/94. During the pendency of the suit, on 12.01.1994 C.Das filed a petition to the Chief Conservator of Forests and District Forest Officer to fix the boundary of Old S.No.3015 with reference to authenticated plan and he agreed in the petition that if the schedule property is different from Old Survey No.3015, he will withdraw his suit. He also filed the same petition to the District Collector, Nagercoil and the Collector has directed the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Nagercoil who is the top authority in the District. The Assistant Director of Survey has measured the property in the presence of C.Das, Revenue staff and Forest staff and has sent a reply to the Collector stating that the schedule property in the suit is entirely different from Old Survey No.3015 and is only part of Kilamalai R.F. Inspite of this, C.Das did not withdraw the suit. The suit in O.S.No.257/94 was dismissed on 25.11.1996 as against which C.Das filed appeal in A.S.No.11 of 1997 before the District Court, Nagercoil and the same dismissed on 18.02.2003. Against the dismissal of the appeal, the present petitioners have filed second appeal before this Court in S.A.No.696 of 13 and is pending disposal. 5. The first respondent further submits that the petitioners have deliberately suppressed all the previous civil litigations before this Court and as the question of title itself is yet to be decided by this court in the second appeal, the petitioners are not entitled to approach this Court with the present petition. The first respondent further submits that the first petitioner or his father was never in possession of the property at any time and they have not proved their claim of title in Old Survey Nos.3014 and 3015. Hence, there is no question of producing any records to prove that the land is part of Reserve Forest. The first respondent further submits that the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records have measured the land. Hence, there is no question of producing any records to prove that the land is part of Reserve Forest. The first respondent further submits that the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records have measured the land. But the statement of the petitioner that the Assistant Director has submitted his report confirming the title in favour of the father of the petitioner and recommended to issue patta is false. The Assistant Director has actually reported that the land claimed is entirely different from the Suit Survey No.3015 and has not recommended any issuance of patta. The first respondent further submits that the title of the property is yet to be decided in the Second Appeal in S.A.No.696 of 2013. Moreover, the first petitioner is still trying to establish his title in the Reserve Forest stating that the same is Old Suvey No.3015. Kilamalai Reserve Forest has been declared as Kanniyakumari Wildlife Sanctuary and for any non forest activity in this area, prior permission is required from the National Wildlife Board and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The first respondent further submits that the land requested to be measured by the petitioners is not Old Survey No.3015 and only part of Kilamalai Reserved Forest and hence, the Forest Department is objecting to carry out any survey inside the Reserved Forest without permission from the National Wildlife Board and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 6. The first respondent further submits that the petitioners are not entitled to approach this Court with this petition as their title itself is yet to be decided in the second appeal pending in this Court in S.A.No.696 of 2013 and as the area has already been surveyed and shown to the father of the first petitioner by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Nagercoil. Hence, the respondents entreat the Court to dismiss the above writ petition. 7. The highly competent counsel Mr.C.Prakasam appearing for the petitioners submits that the first petitioner is the owner of the subject matter of the property and other petitioners are agreement holders. The father of the first petitioner was in possession and enjoyment and after his death, the first petitioner and other family members succeeded the said property. The father of the first petitioner made an application before the Revenue Officials to survey and to demarcate the said lands. The father of the first petitioner was in possession and enjoyment and after his death, the first petitioner and other family members succeeded the said property. The father of the first petitioner made an application before the Revenue Officials to survey and to demarcate the said lands. The District Collector had directed the Assistant Director of Survey to inspect the property and measure the same and accordingly, the property had been measured. It was confirmed that the said land is belonging to the first petitioner herein However, the Revenue Officials had not issued a patta due to the intervention of the Forest Officials. Hence, the petitioner had filed a writ petition for grant of patta. This Court directed the District collector to implement the earlier order dated 17.02.1994, but the same was not considered by the District Collector. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred an application to the Principal Conservator of Forests and to the Director of Survey and Settlement for marking of boundaries of the petitioner's land. Hence, a direction is necessary to measure the said land by way of implementing this Court's order passed in W.P.(MD)No.16815 of 2015 dated 22.10.2013. 8. Mr.M.Govindan, highly competent Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner's claim had been rejected by the Assistant Settlement Officer on 25.04.1988. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had preferred a revision before the Commissioner of Land Administration and the same was dismissed on 05.01.2004. Against the dismissal order, the petitioner has filed a writ petition before this Court and the same was dismissed with the observation to approach the regular civil Court. Accordingly, the petitioner had filed a suit, which was also dismissed. Against the said dismissal of the suit, an appeal has been filed and that had also been dismissed by the District court. Now, the second appeal has been filed by the petitioner herein, which is the connected matter herein. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the highly competent counsels on either side and on perusing the typed-set of paper, this Court dismisses the above writ petition since the petitioners had claimed similar relief on an earlier writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.16815 of 2013, dated 22.10.2013. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in the above writ petition. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.