ORDER : M. SUNDAR, J. Captioned writ petition has been filed with a prayer for issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus. In and vide certiorari limb of the prayer a notice signed by R3 on 07.05.2024 has been assailed. To be noted, caption to this notice says that it has been issued under Section 7 of 'the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Tamil Nadu Act III of 1905)' {hereinafter 'said 1905 Act' for the sake of brevity}. This notice shall hereinafter be referred to as 'impugned notice' for the sake of convenience and clarity. 2. In and vide the mandamus limb of the prayer, a consequent direction to respondents to take out 24 cents from and out of R.S.No.160 and include the same in R.S.Nos.139/1, 139/2, 140 and 140/9, all in Nallagoundanpalayam Village, Erode Taluk, Erode District has been sought. To be noted, the mandamus limb is predicated on 'judgment and decree of the civil Court dated 30.12.1997 made in O.S.No.1275 of 1996 on the file of learned Principal District Munsif Judge's Court, Erode' [hereinafter 'said civil Court decree' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. 3. This Court deems it appropriate to scan and reproduce the impugned notice. We do so and scanned reproduction of the impugned notice is as follows: 4. In and vide said civil Court decree, there is a mandatory injunction in favour of the writ petitioner (to be noted, writ petitioner is Plaintiff No.2 and his brother one N.Shanmughasundaram is Plainitff No.1) directing rectification of revenue records including field map. Sum and substance of the decree is to take out 24 cents from R.S.No.160 and include it with Survey Nos.139 and 140, which are patta lands of the writ petitioner (to be noted patta lands of writ petitioner admeasure 4.49 acres or thereabouts). Pursuant to the said civil Court decree, the writ petitioner sent a representation inter alia to R1, R1 made proceedings dated 26.09.2019 bearing reference which is in the nature of a communication addressed to R2 and a copy has been marked to the writ petitioner. A scanned reproduction of proceedings of R1 is as follows: 5. Post aforementioned proceedings, writ petitioner has sent one more representation dated 27.04.2024 to R1 and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows: 6. A scanned reproduction of proceedings of R1 is as follows: 5. Post aforementioned proceedings, writ petitioner has sent one more representation dated 27.04.2024 to R1 and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows: 6. Adverting to the postal acknowledgment card, learned counsel for writ petitioner Mr.N.Manoharan submits that 27.04.2024 representation has been received by R1 on 30.04.2024. 7. In the light of the aforementioned trajectory, when things stood as above, instead of rectifying revenue records as per said civil Court decree and as per proceedings of R1, impugned notice has been issued by R3 is learned counsel's say. 8. Learned State counsel adverting to counter affidavit of R2 (dated 06.06.2024) submitted that S.No.160/1 is Odai and therefore, the impugned notice has been issued. 9. We carefully considered the rival submissions. To be noted, we had the benefit of perusing the detailed counter affidavit of R2. 10. We find that a specific ground has been raised by writ petitioner vide Ground (B) and the same reads as follows: 'B) that the impugned notice is in defiance of the judgment and decree dated 30.12.1997 made in O.S.No.1275 of 1996 passed by the Ld. Principal District Munsif Court, Erode. Thus, the act of the 3 rd respondent is contemptuous.' 11. The above ground (B) has been met in the counter affidavit of State in following manner: '18. I respectfully submit that with regard to the averments made in the para (B) of the Grounds of the affidavit filed by the petitioner, the respondent states that, the suit is covered other than the old survey no.120/B, C correlated to the R.S.No.160/1 classified as Odai Poramboke. Hence the claim of the writ petitioner is untenable.' 12. We find that the respondents clearly admit that said civil Court decree correlates to S.No.160/1 but in the same breath it has been averred that the claim of the writ petitioner is untenable. We find this plea of the respondents illogical nay preposterous and therefore unacceptable. 13. This Court also reminds itself of the well established principle in law of limitation founded on public policy that even in matters which have become stale, more particularly with regard to limitations qua launching of execution petitions, the remedy is barred but the right is not extinguished. 13. This Court also reminds itself of the well established principle in law of limitation founded on public policy that even in matters which have become stale, more particularly with regard to limitations qua launching of execution petitions, the remedy is barred but the right is not extinguished. Therefore, in response to the impugned notice, it is well within the rights of the writ petitioner to say that said civil Court decree and right that enures to the benefit of the writ petitioner therefrom comes to the aid of the writ petitioner. 14. In any event, the proceedings of R1 dated 26.09.2019 which gives a directive to R2 needs to be complied. To be noted, this proceedings is not disputed in the counter affidavit. 15. In the light of the narrative, discussion and dispositive reasoning thus far, the following order is made: i) R2 and R3 shall do the needful pursuant to communication of R1 dated 26.09.2019 bearing reference which has been reproduced supra; ii) The above exercise shall be completed by R2 and R3 as expeditiously as their official business would permit but in any event within twelve weeks from today i.e., on or before 30.06.2025; iii) Post aforementioned exercise, a report shall be drawn up by R2; iv) The impugned notice shall be kept in abeyance till the aforementioned exercise is completed; v) If the report so drawn up still demonstrates any encroachment, it will be open to R2 or R3 to write to the writ petitioner that the impugned notice stands resuscitated; vi) If the above scenario unfurls, it is open to the writ petitioner to respond to Section 7 notice within a fortnight therefrom raising all points available to the writ petitioner including the said civil Court decree; vii) Though obvious we make it clear that all rights and contentions of writ petitioner are left open for assailing the report drawn up in the aforesaid manner if it is adverse to the writ petitioner or if the writ petitioner feels aggrieved by the report; viii) If no encroachment is found post report drawn up in the aforesaid manner that will be curtains on the matter; ix) This order is made under peculiar facts and circumstance of the case and therefore, the same will not serve as precedent with regard to all cases in which notices under Section Section 7 of said 1905 Act are assailed. Captioned main WP disposed of in the aforesaid manner. Consequently, captioned WMP become otiose and the same is disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.