ORDER : The petitioner challenges the order of the third respondent dated 02.08.2023 in Ni.Mu.No.546/2023/2023. 2. I have heard Mr.P.Rajagopalan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.S.Kameswaran, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 4 and Mr.R.r.Kannan, learned counsel for the fifth respondent. 3. The case of the writ petitioner is that the land in old bymas No. 355 and survey No.218/14 measuring 63 cents in Thanakankulam Village, Thiruparankundram, Madurai District, belonged to one Periya Karuppana Konar and after his demise the same devolved upon his wife, viz., Nagammal and his sons, viz., P.Gopal and P.Velu. The petitioner's father, viz., S.Kannan purchased the said land in survey No.218/14 by a registered sale deed in document No.2007/1966 on 24.03.1966, for lawful and valuable sale consideration. The then Assistant Settlement Officer, conducted an enquiry and also issued patta in the name of the petitioner's father on 23.04.1973. The petitioner claims that his family was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property for the past five decades. The petitioner's mother died on 27.07.1998 and his father died on 08.05.2010, leaving behind the petitioner and three sons, viz., Sundar Raj, Vijaya Raj and Jeya Raj, as their only legal heirs. While being so, the petitioner came to know about the mutation of patta in the name of the fifth respondent in respect of survey No.218/14. Therefore, the petitioner has made a representation to the first respondent, to issue patta in the names of the legal heirs of Late. Kannan and also cancel the patta issued to the fifth respondent. The representation was forwarded to the third respondent, by the first respondent vide proceedings dated 22.07.2021, clarifying in the said proceeding that the lands in old bymas No.335 and survey No.318/14 are one and the same. However, despite such specific observations made by the first respondent, the third respondent failed to issue patta to the petitioner. The petitioner moved this Court in W.P.(MD)No.13054 of 2022 and this Court by an order dated 12.08.2022, directed the respondents to dispose the petitioner's application. Even then, the respondents kept the petitioner's application pending, hence, the petitioner filed a contempt petition in Cont.P.(MD)No.517 of 2023. In order to avoid any punishment in the contempt proceedings, the third respondent, according to the petitioner, hastily conducted an enquiry and passed the impugned on 02.08.2023. 4. Even then, the respondents kept the petitioner's application pending, hence, the petitioner filed a contempt petition in Cont.P.(MD)No.517 of 2023. In order to avoid any punishment in the contempt proceedings, the third respondent, according to the petitioner, hastily conducted an enquiry and passed the impugned on 02.08.2023. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the proceedings of the first respondent had clarified that old bymas No.335 and survey No.218/14 were one and the same and further, he would contend that the fifth respondent has not produced any acceptable documentary evidence to substantiate any interest in survey No.218/14 and the sale deed, which have been relied on by the fifth respondent was only pertaining to bymas No.336, measuring 66 cents and therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner mentioning of survey No.218/14 in the sale deed of the fifth respondent was only a mistake, and the names of Ramasamy, Vatchala and Sellappan were wrongly included at the time of UDR against the property of the petitioner and his family. The learned counsel would therefore contend that taking advantage of the such wrong inclusion of the said name, Ramasamy executed a sale deed in favour of the fifth respondent, though there is absolutely no connection between the property in old bymas No.335 and survey No.218/14. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the fifth respondent though filed various civil suits against various persons, not a single suit was filed against the petitioner or his father and in any event of the claims of the fifth respondent were rejected in all the suits dismissed. The petitioner therefore assails the order of the third respondent and seeks for writ petition being allowed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on the decision of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.15950 of 2014 ( C. Muthukumar V. The Tahsildar ) dated 30.09.2015. 6. The learned Government Advocate, Mr.S.Kameswaran, would submit that the petitioner has an alternate remedy to file a revision before the District Revenue Officer and without availing the same, the petitioner approached this Court and on such limited ground contended that this writ petition deserved to be dismissed. 7. 6. The learned Government Advocate, Mr.S.Kameswaran, would submit that the petitioner has an alternate remedy to file a revision before the District Revenue Officer and without availing the same, the petitioner approached this Court and on such limited ground contended that this writ petition deserved to be dismissed. 7. The learned counsel for the fifth respondent, Mr.R.R.Kannan, would submit that even during the life time of Periya Karuppana Konar, he himself diverted all his rights in the property and therefore the petitioner cannot claim any title. It is the further case of the fifth respondent that the fifth respondent has purchased the property from the lawful owner. The learned counsel for the fifth respondent would also contend that the petitioner has failed to avail the statutory revision remedy under Section 13 of the Patta Passbook Act and therefore, he would seek for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side. 9. With regard to the petitioner not availing the alternate remedy available under Section 13 of the Patta Passbook Act , the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in C.Muthukumar's case and this Court has laid down that non-entertainment of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when there is an alternate and efficacious remedy is available is a rule of self imposed limitation and it is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. Undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226, despite the existence of an alternative remedy and the High Court should not interfere only if there is an adequate and efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner and the petitioner has approached the High Court without availing the same. If the petitioner has made out an exceptional case warranting such interference or there exist sufficient grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, then the Writ Court is entitled to grant relief. 10. From the reading of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and also the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am unable to find any such exceptional case being made out. 10. From the reading of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and also the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am unable to find any such exceptional case being made out. The only contention of the petitioner is that there is no correlation between the fifth respondent's vendor's property and the property which has been purchased by the petitioner. These are all matters of fact. Therefore, it would not be safe for the Writ Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to go into such factual disputes and pass orders one way or the other. It would be proper for the petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of the third respondent to prefer a statutory revision under Section 13 of the Patta Passbook Act , before the second respondent, the competent authority to go into the factual matrix, the legality of the submissions regarding correlation of survey number, possibility of survey No.218/14 having been sold under the guise of correlation with old bymas No.336 etc.. 11. Therefore, I am unable to exercise discretion in favour of the writ petitioner as I do not find any such exceptional case being made in the nature of depriving the petitioner of a fair opportunity or hearing that the impugned order has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. 12. In view of the above, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the third respondent and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. However, considering the fact that the petitioner has been agitating the order passed by the third respondent before this Court in the writ petition right from 2023, a direction is given to the Registry to return the original order of the third respondent, which is impugned in the writ petition, within a period of two weeks from today, on getting necessary acknowledgment / receipt from the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner shall prefer a statutory revision within a period of four weeks from the date of obtaining the original order impugned in the writ petition. The second respondent shall entertain the revision without putting the issue of limitation against the petitioner and shall entertain the revision and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, after affording a fair opportunity to the petitioner as well as the fifth respondent. The second respondent shall entertain the revision without putting the issue of limitation against the petitioner and shall entertain the revision and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, after affording a fair opportunity to the petitioner as well as the fifth respondent. 13. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.