Allowed

Kumar.P v. The District Collector

Madras HC27 Jun 2022WP(MD)/191/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court held that when a dispute exists between private parties regarding property boundaries and a civil suit is already pending, the revenue authority cannot conduct survey or demarcation. The court quashed the order declining survey, directed the refund of the deposit, and directed the civil court to decide the matter on merits swiftly.

What did the court decide?

The order declining survey was quashed. The third respondent was directed to refund Rs. 2,000. The District Munsif Court was directed to dispose of the civil suit within eight months.

Kumar.P Vs The District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.191 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.06.2022 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.191 of 2021 and W.M.P.(MD)No.156 of 2021

P.Kumar

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, District Collector Office,

¶7

Madurai District.

¶8

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer Office, Collectorate Campus,

¶9

Madurai-20.

¶10

3.The Tahsildar, Thirupparankundram Tahsildar Office, Thirupparankundram Taluk,

¶11

Madurai-625 006.

¶12

4.The Deputy Inspector of Survey, Thirupparankundram Tahsildar Office, Thirupparankundram Taluk, Madurai-625 005.

¶13

5.G.Aloysius ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned order passed by the third respondent in his Na.Ka.No.241/2020, dated 05.12.2020 and quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the 3^rd and 4^th respondents to survey the petitioner's dwelling area as per the petitioner's representation dated 05.12.2020.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Guhaseelarupan For R1 to R4 : Mr.M.Prakash Additional Government Pleader For R5 : Mr.A.L.Vijay Devraj

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶18

The petitioner as well as the 5^th respondent are in occupation of portions of Survey No.221/2 in Thirunagar. The fifth

¶19

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

¶20

1/3

¶21

W.P.(MD)No.191 of 2021

¶22

respondent has also filed an injunction suit in O.S.No.211 of 2020 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam. In these circumstances, the petitioner wanted the Tahsildar to conduct exercise of survey and demarcation. The Tahsildar citing the pendency of the civil suit declined to do so. Questioning the same, this writ petition came to be filed.

¶23

After hearing the learned counsel on either side, I am satisfied that there is a dispute between the two private parties. Therefore, it is only the jurisdictional civil Court which can resolve the issues. When there is an objection, the surveyor cannot be expected to carry out the work of demarcation. The petitioner can very well institute the suit for demarcation. According to him, the boundaries will have to be definite. The petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs.2,000/-. The said amount was remitted only for the purpose of carrying out the survey exercise. Since the Tahsildar has declined to survey the property, he is not justified in retaining the amount. The third respondent is directed to refund the amount of Rs.2,000/- remitted by the petitioner to him forthwith and without any delay. The District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam, is directed to dispose of O.S.No.211 of 2020 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner has already been granted liberty to file a suit for demarcation for definite boundaries. I make it clear that I have not gone into the merits of the matter.

¶24

With this direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶25

// True Copy //

¶26

/07/2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶27

rmi

¶28

¶29

1.The District Collector, District Collector Office, Madurai District.

¶30

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer Office, Collectorate Campus, Madurai-20.

¶31

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

¶32

2/3

¶33

W.P.(MD)No.191 of 2021

¶34

3.The Tahsildar, Thirupparankundram Tahsildar Office, Thirupparankundram Taluk, Madurai-625 006. 4.The Deputy Inspector of Survey, Thirupparankundram Tahsildar Office, Thirupparankundram Taluk, Madurai-625 005.

¶35

COPY TO:-

¶36

THE DISTRICT MUNSIF, THIRUMANGALAM.

¶37

+2 CC to M/s.C. GUHASEELARUPAN, Advocate ( SR-28147[F] dated 27/06/2022 ) +1 CC to M/s.A.L. VIJEYDEVRAJ, Advocate ( SR-28854[F] dated 29/06/2022 )

¶38

+1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-28457[F] dated 28/06/2022 ) W.P.(MD)No.191 of 2021 and W.M.P.(MD)No.156 of 2021 27.06.2022

¶39

SRK (CO) GC(04.07.2022) 3P 10C

¶40

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

¶41

3/3

Kumar.P v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumar.P v. The District Collector

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

Ramasamy. Vs the Passport Officer

Vadivel Murugan Vs the Joint Sub Registrar

Prakash.S Vs the Food Safety Officer

A1382, Virudhunagar District Consumers Co-Operative Whole Sales Stores Ltd., Vs the Tamil Nadu Information Commission

Perumal .P Vs the Registrar Cum Commissioner of Milk

Sivaji Vs the Chairman