ORDER : M.SUNDAR, J. Subject matter of captioned main 'Writ Petition' is 'land comprised in S.No.384/6 in Valluvakudi, Sirkazhi Taluk, Mayiladuthurai District' [hereinafter 'said land' for the sake of convenience]. 2. First petitioner Thiru.T.Paramasivam, Son of Thankasami was seeking removal of alleged encroachment in said land said to have been made by R3 and R4 filed a writ petition in W.P.No.5675 of 2024. To be noted, R3 and R4 in captioned matter are R6 and R7 respectively in the earlier writ petition filed by first writ petitioner Thiru.T.Paramasivam. The earlier writ petition came to be disposed of by another Division Bench in and by an order dated 04.03.2024, which reads as follows: 'IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.03.2024 CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY W.P.No.5675 of 2024 T.Paramasivam .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The Commissioner of Land Administration Ezhilagam, Chepauk Chennai – 600 005. 2. The District Collector O/o. District Collectorate Mayiladuthurai District. 3. The District Revenue Officer O/o.District Revenue Officer Mayiladuthurai District. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer O/o.Revenue Divisional Officer Mayiladuthurai District. 5. The Tahsildar O/o.Tahsildar, Sirkazhi Mayiladuthurai District. 6. Ramu 7. R.Sasikumar .. Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 5 to remove the encroachments made by the respondents 6 and 7 in the lane comprised in S.No. 384/6 (Old No.154/1 Part) situated at 57, Valluvakudi, Sirkazhi Taluk, Mayiladuthruai district particularly described in the Adangal Register on the complaint dated 15.12.2023 made by the petitioner. For the Petitioner Mr.G.Ethirajulu For the Respondents Mr.K.Karthik Jagannath Government Advocate for R1 to R5 ORDER (Made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) Heard Mr.G.Ethirajulu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Karthik Jagannath, learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 5. 2. Learned Government Advocate submits that the authorities would survey the land within a period of three months and depending upon the report of the survey, further action, in accordance with law, would be undertaken expeditiously. 3. In view of the said statement, the writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.6277 of 2024 is closed. (S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.) 04.03.2024 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No drm To 1. The Commissioner of Land Administration Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. 2. 3. In view of the said statement, the writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.6277 of 2024 is closed. (S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.) 04.03.2024 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No drm To 1. The Commissioner of Land Administration Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. 2. The District Collector O/o. District Collectorate Mayiladuthurai District. 3. The District Revenue Officer O/o.District Revenue Officer Mayiladuthurai District. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer O/o.Revenue Divisional Officer Mayiladuthurai District. 5. The Tahsildar O/o.Tahsildar, Sirkazhi Mayiladuthurai District.' 3. In the aforesaid backdrop, R2 has made an 'order dated 30.12.2024 bearing reference [hereinafter 'impugned order' for the sake of brevity. 4. Mr.G.Ethirajulu, learned counsel for writ petitioners adverting to the impugned order submitted that the same is untenable and contended that the same is contrary to the earlier judicial order dated 04.03.2024 particularly on the ground that the writ petitioner was not given an opportunity of being heard. 5. Issue notice to official respondents. 6. Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice for the official respondents (R1 and R2) and submits on instructions that the impugned order is a transient order as R4 (son of R3) has petitioned R1 (Revenue Divisional Officer, Sirkazhi Taluk, Mayiladuthurai District) inter alia on the ground that an error has occurred in UDR updation and on that basis, sought patta qua said land in the name of his father (R3), the same is pending and pending such proceedings, action cannot be precipitated qua said land. 7. We carefully considered the submissions made on either side. 8. This Court finds that the scope of the captioned main WP is very limited and therefore, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, main WP was taken up in the Admission Board. In this regard, it is made clear that we would not be making any order touching upon the rights and contentions of private respondents (R3 and R4) much less an order that is adverse to R3 and R4. On the contrary, we would be preserving all the rights and contentions of R3 and R4 in the proceedings that are pending before R1. Therefore, we dispense with notice to R3 and R4. This means that there is no impediment in the main WP being taken up with the consent of both sides in the Admission Board. 9. On the contrary, we would be preserving all the rights and contentions of R3 and R4 in the proceedings that are pending before R1. Therefore, we dispense with notice to R3 and R4. This means that there is no impediment in the main WP being taken up with the consent of both sides in the Admission Board. 9. Reverting to the impugned order, a careful perusal of the impugned order brings to light that in the reference, the aforementioned earlier judicial order of another Hon'ble Division Bench being order dated 04.03.2024 in W.P.No.5675 of 2024 has been cited as No.1. In the earlier judicial order, we find that the Hon'ble Division has recorded the submission of learned Government Advocate that survey would be conducted by the authorities within a period of three months and depending on the report of survey, further action in accordance with law would be undertaken expeditiously. Serial No.2 in the reference of the impugned order refers to a report dated 08.03.2024 i.e., a report of R2. Learned State counsel submits that this is the survey report pursuant to earlier judicial order. Thereafter, there is a reference to a petition from R4 dated 28.11.2024 and another petition from R3 dated 24.12.2024. There is further reference to 26.12.2024 as the date fixed for removal of encroachment and reports of Assistant Inspector of the Taluk and Zonal Deputy Tahsildar dated 26.12.2024 and 30.12.2024. It is in this context, as the petition made by R4 before R1 seeking rectification of errors said to have occurred in UDR updation and issue of patta is pending, R2 has come to the conclusion that at this stage coercive action qua said land cannot be precipitated. To be noted, concluding paragraph of the impugned order reads as follows: 10. The narrative and discussion thus far besides our perusal of the impugned order brings to light that it cannot be gainsaid that the impugned order is contrary to the earlier judicial order dated 04.03.2024. The earlier judicial order has recorded the undertaking of the State counsel that a survey will be conducted, a report will be drawn up and removal of encroachment proceedings in accordance with law will be initiated depending on the survey report. Immediately after the earlier judicial order, survey has been conducted and survey report has been drawn up on 08.03.2024 and action for removal of encroachment has also been commenced. Immediately after the earlier judicial order, survey has been conducted and survey report has been drawn up on 08.03.2024 and action for removal of encroachment has also been commenced. To be noted, as already alluded to supra, date for removal of encroachment has also been fixed and the same has been fixed as 26.12.2024. As R4 has petitioned R2 well before that date, i.e., on 28.11.2024 and R3 has also petitioned thereafter, we have no difficulty in accepting the submission of learned State counsel that it is only a transient order which says that outcome of the proceedings before R1 has to be awaited. Therefore, further action, if any, will depend on the orders of R1 in the proceedings alluded to supra and adverted to in the impugned order in the concluding paragraph which has been extracted and reproduced supra. 11. At this juncture, Mr.G.Ethirajulu, learned counsel for the writ petitioners made a request to fix a time frame for R1 to conclude the proceedings which are pending before R1 i.e., proceedings for correction of error said to have occurred in UDR updation and request for patta vide petition made by R4. We accede to this request and direct R1 to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as the business of R1 would permit but in any event within six months from today i.e., on or before 20.09.2025. In this regard, we reiterate that all the rights and contentions of R3 and R4 are preserved for pursuing their petition before R1. It is open to R1 in the course of enquiring into the matter to requisition comments from the writ petitioner if so advised and if deemed necessary. We make it clear that this is not a direction but we only making it clear that it is open to R1 to adopt such a course if it becomes necessary. 12. In the light of the narrative, discussion and dispositive reasoning thus far, we conclude that the impugned order does not warrant interference by issue of writ of certiorari and therefore, the consequent mandamus limb for removal of encroachment does not fall for consideration now in this writ petition. It has to await the outcome of proceedings before R1. In other words, such proceedings will be subject to and depending on the outcome of the proceedings before R1. It has to await the outcome of proceedings before R1. In other words, such proceedings will be subject to and depending on the outcome of the proceedings before R1. Ergo, the sequitur is captioned WP is disposed of as closed albeit with a directive to R1 as set out supra. Consequently, captioned WMPs thereat are also disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.