Dismissed

Andiyappan v. the Tahsildar

Madras HC10 Mar 2021WP(MD)/1163/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking direction to survey and fix land boundaries. The Court held it could not adjudicate factual boundary disputes without investigation, directing the petitioner to first approach the revenue authority for rectification of discrepancies.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the petitioner is directed to approach the concerned authority for rectification of boundary description and thereafter for survey and demarcation.

Andiyappan Vs the Tahsildar — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.1163 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:10.03.2021 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN

¶4

W.P(MD)No.1163 of 2021

Andiyappan

...Petitioner

The Tahsildar, Vedachandur Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶9

The Taluk Surveyor, Vedachandur Taluk, ... Respondents Dindigul District.

¶10

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to survey and fix the boundaries of the land in Survey Nos.1661/1B,1661/2B, 1661/2E belonged to the petitioner situate at Vadamaduarai village, Dinidul District within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Balakrishnan For respondents : Mr.C.Ramesh,

¶12

Special Government Pleader

¶13

ORDER

¶14

When the matter is taken up for hearing the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf the respondents would produce a copy of the proceedings of the 1^st respondent / the Tahsildar, Vedasandur in Na.Ka.No.4323/2020/A4, dated 09.03.2021.

¶15

2.According to the 1^st respondent Thasildar, there appears to be some discrepancies in the boundaries description in the survey numbers as claimed by the petitioner herein and therefore, the proper course for the petitioner is to approach the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned for rectification and unless such rectification is done, the boundaries cannot be demarcated.

¶16

3.At this, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would insist that there is proper description of the boundaries mentioned by the petitioner therefore it is not open to the Tahsildar to raise any objection in regard to the same.

¶17

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

¶18

1/2

¶19

W.P(MD)No.1163 of 2021

¶20

4.This Court is unable to appreciate such arguments being advanced by the petitioner for the simple reason that the 1^st respondent alone is competent to state whether the description of the properties is correct or not? If there is any dispute or discrepancy in regard to the matters pertaining to the boundaries of the properties, the proper course for the petitioner is to approach the authority concerned and get the rectification done before approaching the authority seeking for survey and demarcation of the property.

¶21

5.As far as the jurisdiction of this Court is concerned, such an adjudication cannot be done without doing factual investigation, which is not the part of the adjudicatory process in this extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶22

6.For the above said reasons, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition and therefore, the same stands dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to approach the authority concerned for rectification of the description of the boundaries as pointed in the proceeding of the 1^st respondent dated 09.03.2021 and thereafter it is open to the petitioner to approach the authority concerned for survey and demarcation of the said subject survey numbers. No costs.

¶23

// True Copy //

¶24

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶25

dsk To

¶26

The Tahsildar, Vedachandur Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶27

The Taluk Surveyor, Vedachandur Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶28

+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-10550[F] dated 11/03/2021 ) +1 CC to M/s.A.BALA KRISHNAN, Advocate ( SR-10447[F] dated 11/03/2021 )

¶29

W.P(MD)No.1163 of 2021 10.03.2021

¶30

MA(CO)

¶31

KK(30.03.2021) 2P 5C

¶32

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

¶33

2/2

Andiyappan v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Andiyappan v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nallammal.P Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Gopalakrishnan.N Vs the Revenue Divsional Officer

Sabar Nisha.a Vs Noorjahan Begam.M

Abdul Jabbar. M.R Vs The Inspector General of Registration

Gunasekaran Vs the Sub Registrar

Ram Anand.R Vs the Inspector General of Registration