2.This is the second time the petitioner has approached this Court pertaining to the same issue. Earlier, the petitioner filed W.P.No.18259 of 2015 praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent Municipality to release the demand draft dated 27.03.2015 towards the property tax for the building in question for the period 2015-2016. A controversy arose on account of the rival claim made by the third respondent herein, viz. S.Pichandi. The writ petitioner claims to have succeeded before the Civil Court by obtaining a judgment and decree in O.S.No.248 of 2001 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Sankarankoil, declaring that Mariappa Nadar and 83 others are alone the legal heirs of Santhanam Nadar. The counsel for the third respondent has contended that the suit filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. However, it is the contention of the petitioner that it is another suit which was filed before the District Munsif Court, Thiruvannamalai which was dismissed and not O.S.No.248 of 2001. After noting this, this Court pointed out that disputed questions of fact cannot be agitated in a writ petition and since the first respondent Municipality had called upon the parties to produce the documents and they had also produced the same, the Court directed the first respondent to issue notice of enquiry, hear the parties in person and pass a reasoned order. This exercise has been completed and an order dated 16.11.2016 has been passed which is impugned in this writ petition.
