Judgment 1. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the 1st respondent dated 02.01.2015 and quash the same and consequently forbear the respondent from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's property in S.No.259/3 situated at Sakkimangalam 1 bit, Karseri Panchayat, Madurai East Taluk, Madurai District till the application of the petitioner for building plan approval is considered by the respondents 1 & 2 herein. 3. According to the petitioner, the land in S.No.259/3 absolutely belongs to her. According to her, originally the said land was assigned in favour of one Damayanthi in the year 1991. Thereafter, patta also has been granted in her favour. From the said date onwards, she was in possession and enjoyment of the property. Thereafter, the petitioner purchased the said property through a registered sale deed dated 25.07.2002 for a valuable consideration. Thereafter, he put up a house in the property. Since the local Village Administrative Officer has tried to dispossess the petitioner from the property, he has given a detailed representation to the District Collector, Madurai. Thereafter, he has filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.15254 of 2013 before this Court and that writ petition was disposed of on 03.09.2014, in which a specific order was given that “...If any action has to be taken against the petitioner, it shall be done after following the due process of law....”. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondents 1 & 2 for granting of building plan approval and that was not granted. Subsequently, without issuing any notice, on 13.12.2014, the first respondent came with JCB to demolish the property. The villagers stopped that demolition. Then, thereafter, in an order dated 24.12.2014, the petitioner was called upon to remove the superstructure. Challenging the same, he filed another writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.21344 of 2014 and that application was dismissed on the ground that there is no building plan approval. According to her, the Court has not taken into consideration of Section 34(i) (iii) of Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act (Tamil Nadu Panchayat Buildings Rules, 1997). Once again, he approached the authorities for building plan approval and that application has not been received by them. Therefore, he has sent an application through registered post. According to her, the Court has not taken into consideration of Section 34(i) (iii) of Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act (Tamil Nadu Panchayat Buildings Rules, 1997). Once again, he approached the authorities for building plan approval and that application has not been received by them. Therefore, he has sent an application through registered post. In the mean while, the earlier order of demolition was withdrawn, stating that in the earlier order only 4 days time was given and in the present impugned order, the petitioner was given 15 days for removing the encroachments. Since this present impugned order has a separate cause of action, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the said order. 4. When the matter was taken up for admission, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if survey is conducted along with surveyor and if it is found to be a pathway owned by the Government or Panchayat, the petitioner is ready to demolish the building. On the undertaking given by the petitioner, this Court issued a direction to the respondents to survey the property in question in the presence of the petitioner on 28.01.2015 at 10.00 a.m. 5. Now, it is submitted that the aforesaid survey was conducted and Survey Report has been filed today. The Survey Report categorically states that the property situates in the Government property. But, at this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a discrepancy in mentioning of Survey Number in the sale deed and that should not be taken into consideration for demolition of the property. 6. The learned Additional Government Pleader would contend that what the petitioner has purchased is S.No.259/3. But, she claims title on the basis of an assignment patta, in which survey number has been mentioned as 104/3. A third party also claims title over the same. However, the petitioner has not produced any document to co-relate with the same. In fact, the surveyor has categorically stated in his report that S.No.259/3 is the survey number that existed before the Land Records Updating Scheme. A third party also claims title over the same. However, the petitioner has not produced any document to co-relate with the same. In fact, the surveyor has categorically stated in his report that S.No.259/3 is the survey number that existed before the Land Records Updating Scheme. But, in the year 1983, that was classified as S.No.104/3, Grama Natham, measuring an extent of 2.49.0 sq.m. Subsequently, in the year 1991, it was sub-divided into various survey numbers and presently, the property, in which, the petitioner has put up a construction is situate in S.No.210/29 and it is a Government poromboke, to an extent of 0077.5 sq.m. Therefore, it is nothing to do with the property, which is alleged to be purchased and what she has occupied is a Government land. Therefore, he contended that the authorities have rightly taken the steps. He further contended that earlier, on three occasions, they have given notices to the petitioner. Even though they have obstructed the earlier notices stating that there is no time gap, in the present notice, clearly 15 days sufficient time has been given and appropriate regulations have been followed. In spite of the same, the petitioner has not demolished the building. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. The short point involved in this writ petition is “When the petitioner is claiming right over S.No.259/3, the present action of the respondents taken in S.No.104/3, is sustainable in law?” 8. Though the petitioner claims that her proper title is S.No.259/3, she claims title by way of a document in her predecessor's name in S.No.104/3. Then, there is no need or necessity to mention S.No.259/3. Further at the time of admission, it is categorically admitted by the petitioner that if a survey is conducted along with surveyor and if the surveyor finds that the building is not situate in her property or situate in the Government property, she is prepared to demolish the building. Only on the said undertaking, this Court directed the respondents to survey the property in question in the presence of the petitioner. The survey report reads as follows: “TAMIL” 9. Only on the said undertaking, this Court directed the respondents to survey the property in question in the presence of the petitioner. The survey report reads as follows: “TAMIL” 9. Therefore, from the survey report, it is clear that the property now is in S.No.210/29, earlier S.No.104/3 i.e S.No.259/3, before the Land Records Updating Scheme, from the purchaser, vests in the Government poromboke and therefore, the Government, is, under law, entitled to take action, even as per the earlier order of this Court and the impugned notice is also properly valid. 10. Therefore, challenge in the present writ petition is not maintainable and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. The respondents are entitled to take action against the petitioner. It is mentioned in the Survey Report that apart from the petitioner, other four persons are also encroaching in the said area and they have also constructed houses in it. Hence, it is open to the respondents to take necessary action against those persons also in accordance with law after giving notices. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2015 is closed. No costs.