JUDGMENT (Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the second respondent relating to the proceedings bearing No.2706/TOB/LG/ A1/2013/717 dated 19.11.2013 quash the same.) 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the second respondent relating to the proceedings bearing No.2706/TOB/LG/ A1/2013/717 dated 19.11.2013 and to quash the same. 2. The case of the petitioner is that during the year 1989 there was partition in the petitioner's family and vide partition deed dated 18.07.1989 the petitioner was allotted 7 Ares and 65 Centiares in S.No.151/2 and an extent of 22 Ares and 90 Centiares was allotted to his two brothers namely, Baskaran and Bharathan/ third respondent. Thereafter the said Baskaran died as a bachelor on 07.09.2005 and Bharathan claimed that Baskaran had bequeathed all his movable and immovable properties in his favour under a WILL dated 06.09.2005 and lodged a complaint dated 02.08.2013 before the District Collector, Puducherry that the petitioner had encroached upon an extent of 1 Are and 86 Centiares over his lands. The said complaint was forwarded to the second respondent, pursuant to which the impugned proceedings came to be issued. Hence, this writ petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that G.O.Ms.104, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Puducherry, dated 16.11.2007, does not authorise the second respondent for ordering delivery of property and it only says that in case of dispute over possession of the property, the matter may be referred to Sub – Divisional Magistrate to proceed under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. and in the event of dispute over title, the parties may be advised to approach the competent Civil Court. However, without following due procedure, the second respondent passed the impugned proceedings advising the petitioner to hand over possession of an extent of 1 Are and 86 Centiares of land to the third respondent, which is not sustainable one. 4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that as per G.O.Ms.104, dated 16.11.2007, the second respondent does not power to advise the petitioner to hand over possession of an extent of 1 Are and 86 Centiares of land to the third respondent. 4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that as per G.O.Ms.104, dated 16.11.2007, the second respondent does not power to advise the petitioner to hand over possession of an extent of 1 Are and 86 Centiares of land to the third respondent. Hence, this Court may set aside the impugned proceedings in respect of the portion advising the petitioner to hand over possession of an extent of 1 Are and 86 Centiares of land to the third respondent alone. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. There is no representation for the third respondent. 6. The facts in the present case is not in dispute. Due to family dispute, the third respondent lodged a complaint dated 02.08.2013 before the District Collector, Puducherry that the petitioner had encroached upon an extent of 1 Are and 86 Centiares over his lands. The said complaint was forwarded to the second respondent, pursuant to which the impugned proceedings advising the petitioner to hand over possession of an extent of 1 Are and 86 Centiares of land to the third respondent came to be issued. However, such direction issued by the second respondent as against the petitioner is not sustainable one and it is against G.O.Ms.104, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Puducherry, dated 16.11.2007. 7. In view of the above, the portion advising the petitioner to hand over possession of an extent of 1 Are and 86 Centiares of land to the third respondent, of the impugned proceedings dated 19.11.2013 alone, is set aside. The other observations and directions in the impugned proceedings remain intact. This Court directs the petitioner and the third respondent to work out the remedy before the competent civil Court with regard to the claim of the disputed 1 Are and 86 Centiares of land. 8. This writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.