Village, Kudavasal Taluk, Thiruvarur District, was owned by one Anjammal, who is the mother of the petitioner and thereafter, she executed Settlement Deed in the year 1986 for above said entire extent in favour of her grandson viz., Senthilkumar, son of the petitioner. During natham settlement, S.F.No.129/6 was sub divided and registered as S.F.No.129/30 admeasuring 9 cents as belonging to the petitioner and S.F.No.25, admeasuring 11 cents as 'Sarkar Porombomke Natham'. Against those entires, the petitioner has preferred a petition in the year 1999 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvarur, claiming that his son had inherited 20 cents of land through a registered Settlement Deed, however at the time of natham settlement, patta issued for an extent of 9 cents only. The Revenue Divisional Officer, in his order dated 22.04.2000, has ordered to change the classification as 'Sarkar Manai, in respect of 2.6 metres and to re-survey the lands to leave pathway for only 2 metres as Sarkar Poromboke pathai, instead of 4.6 metres and thereafter as no action was taken by the Tahsildar, Kudavasal, the Revenue Divisional Officer has again directed the Tahsildar to prepare new sub division statement as ordered in his proceedings dated 22.04.2000. Aggrieved by the said order, one Saravanan has filed a Revision Petition before the District Revenue Officer, Thiruvarur, who vide proceedings dated 17.11.2003 has set aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvarur. Against the order of the District Revenue Officer, the petitioner has filed a Revision Petition, However, the said revision petition was dismissed vide order dated 24.12.2004. Challenging the same, the petitioner has preferred W.P.No.917/2009 and this Court vide order dated 26.11.2009, had kept the order dated 24.12.2004 in abeyance and directed the 1st respondent to issue direction to the Tahsildar to conduct a field survey. However, contrary to the order of this Court, the 1st respondent passed an order stating that there was an existing pathway after the UDR scheme on the western side of the property owned by the petitioner to a width of 4.6 metres. Challenging the same, the present petition is filed.
