M.Bakthavatchalam Vs The Tahsildar

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

 DATED : 02.09.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

¶5

W.P.No.18261 of 2021

¶6

M.Bakthavatchalam ... Petitioner
Vs.

¶7

1.The Tahsildar,
 Bahour Taluk,
 Bahour,
 Puducherry.

¶8

2.The Deputy Surveyor,
 Bahour Taluk,
 Bahour,

¶9

 Puducherry. ... Respondents

¶10

Prayer:Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct
the respondents to survey the petitioner's property in
R.S.No.2/1, 2/2 & 3/1, Kirumambakkam Village, Bahour Taluk and
issue a survey report based on the petitioner's application
dated 27.10.2020 within a time frame as fixed by this Court.

¶11

 For Petitioner : Mr.C.Anbu
for Mr.M.R.Thangavel

¶12

 For respondents : Mrs.V.Usha
Additional Government Pleader,
Pondicherry

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioner has filed a mandamusto direct the
respondents to survey the petitioner's property in R.S.Nos.2/1,
2/2 & 3/1, Kirumambakkam Village, Bahour Taluk and issue a
survey report based on the petitioner's application dated
27.10.2020 within a time frame as fixed by this Court.

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

2.The case of the petitioner is that his father viz., Muthu
Purushothaman Reddiyar purchased an extent of 1.30.00 hectares
of land situated in Old S.No.649/2, Kirumambakkam Village by a
sale deed dated 18.01.1952 executed by one Subramanian son of
Rangasamy Kumar. According to the petitioner, ever since the
date of the said sale deed his father was in actual possession
and enjoyment of the said land. After the resettlement, Old
S.No.649/2 was numbered as R.S.Nos.2/1, 2/2 & 3/1 vide patta
No.277 issued by Tahsildar, Bahour.

¶17

3.It is also the case of the petitioner that his father
expired on 02.01.2001 leaving behind the petitioner as the sole
legal heir. After the demise of his father, the petitioner is
in actual possession and enjoyment of the said property.
October 2020 onwards, there is disturbances from the adjacent
land owners to the petitioner's peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the said property. Hence, the petitioner made an
application to the respondent on 27.10.2020 seeking to survey
the land in S.Nos.2/1, 2/2 and 3/1, Kirumampakkam Village along
with the title document.

¶18

4.According to the petitioner, he has paid Rs.150/- as
demarcation charges vide receipt No.394227 dated 05.11.2020 and
the Deputy Surveyor/the second respondent issued notice to the
petitioner intimating the surveyor would cause site inspection
and enquire into the matter and the petitioner was required to
attend the same with connected documents on 11.11.2020.
According to the petitioner, he was surprised that though his
application seeking to survey his lands in survey numbers viz.
2/1, 2/2 and 3/1 Kirumampakkam Village, but notice was issued by
the second respondent contained only one survey number viz.
S.No.2/2 in Kirumampakkam Village.

¶19

5.According to the petitioner, he has attended the survey
enquiry and requested the surveyor to survey his lands in S.Nos.
2/1, 2/2 & 3/1 Kirumampakkam Village as his application was to
survey all the aforesaid three survey numbers. On 11.11.2020,
the petitioner attended the site inspection along with the
relevant documents to participate in the survey. However, the
surveyor was prevented by unknown persons and the surveyor has
left without surveying the aforesaid lands.

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

6.The petitioner submits that since several requests made
by him in person seeking to survey the lands, the respondents
have failed to survey the same for the reasons best known to
them. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶22

7.The learned Additional Government Pleader (Pondicherry),
submits that the said application was considered once and they
are willing to survey the lands as per the title documents to be
produced by the petitioner within a time frame.

¶23

8.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Additional Government Pleader, Pondicherry for the
respondents and perused the materials available on record.

¶24

9.On going through the averments, it is seen that earlier
the petitioner was requested the surveyor to survey his lands in
S.Nos.2/1, 2/2 and 3/1, Kirumampakkam Village along with the
title document, but it has been prevented by unknown persons and
the surveyor has left without surveying the lands.

¶25

10.In view of the above, this Court directs the petitioner
to pay the necessary fee along with his application and approach
the second respondent/surveyor within a period of two weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any application
is received within the said period, the second
respondent/surveyor shall conduct survey after issuing notice to
other persons who are the neighbours and adjacent landowners,
within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy
of his application.

¶26

11.With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed
of. No costs.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

Assistant Registrar (CS-VIII)

¶29

// True Copy //

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

pam

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶33

To

¶34

1.The Tahsildar,
 Bahour Taluk,
 Bahour,
 Puducherry.

¶35

2.The Deputy Surveyor,
 Bahour Taluk,
 Bahour,

¶36

 Puducherry.

¶37

+1CC to Mr.C.Anbu, Advocate, SR.No. 44312
+1CC to The Government Pleader, SR.No. 44650

¶38

W.P.No.18261 of 2021

¶39

GPL(CO)

¶40

B.VC (27/09/2021)

¶41

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M.Bakthavatchalam v. The Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Bakthavatchalam v. The Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Kandasamy Vs The Inspector General of Registration

Mrs. Rasamani Vs The Sub Registrar

S.Chitra Vs The District Collector

Mr.D.Vanju Gandhi Vs The Inspector General of Registration

S.Govindaraj Vs The District Collector

Mariyappan Vs The District Collector