Disposed

C.Chandran v. the Tahsildar

Madras HC21 Jun 2023WP/18109/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner sought a direction to the Tahsildar to measure and fix land boundaries based on previous representations. Relying on recent batch judgments interpreting jurisdiction under Section 9 CPC and the role of authorities under the Survey and Boundaries Act, the court disposed of the petition without issuing writs.

What did the court decide?

No specific writ relief granted; petition disposed on the lines of a related batch judgment directing authorities to consider applications generally.

C.Chandran Vs the Tahsildar — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.18109 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 21.06.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

W.P.No.18109 of 2023

¶7

C.Chandran ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Tahsildar, Bargur Taluk, Krishnagiri District. ... Respondent

¶10

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider and to act on the representation made by the petitioner on various dates that is, on 03.07.2017, 09.11.2021 and 09.06.2022, to measure and fix boundaries in respect of the petitioner's share of land in S. No. 518/1 (New S. No. 518/3B1), 517/1 (New S. No. 517/1A1A) and 508/1 as per Joint Patta No. 224, vide Partition Deed dated 15.07.1996 registered as DOC No. 1642 of 1996 measuring 87.5 cents, 58 cents and 74 cents respectively, within a time fixed by this Court.

¶11

For Petitioner : M/s. K.Soundarya For Respondent : Mr. T.Arunkumar, Additional Government Pleader

¶12

Page 1 of 6

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

W.P.No.18109 of 2023

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The relief sought for in the writ petition is to direct the respondent to

¶17

consider and to act on the representation made by the petitioner on various

¶18

dates on 03.07.2017, 09.11.2021 and 09.06.2022, to measure and fix boundaries in respect of the petitioner's share of land in S. No. 518/1 (New S. No. 518/3B1), 517/1 (New S. No. 517/1A1A) and 508/1 as per Joint Patta No. 224, vide Partition Deed dated 15.07.1996 registered as DOC No. 1642 of 1996 measuring 87.5 cents, 58 cents and 74 cents respectively, within a time fixed by this Court.

¶19

The issues raised in the present writ petition were adjudicated by this Court in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.37519 of 2016 & etc., batch , and a judgment was delivered on 1 9.06.2023 and the relevant paragraphs of the judgment are extracted hereunder:

¶20

“36. Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure unambiguously contemplates that “The Courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred”.

¶21

Page 2 of 6

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

W.P.No.18109 of 2023

¶24

37. Therefore, a special enactment has no relevance with reference to a right of the parties to approach the competent Civil Court of law to resolve all nature of civil disputes including boundary dispute, survey dispute, title dispute, ownership or otherwise. Therefore, neither the parties nor the authorities need to create an impression that in the event of boundary dispute, the parties have to approach the authorities at the first instance. It is not required that the aggrieved persons, in the event of boundary dispute has to approach the authorities for fixing the boundary, they are at liberty to approach the Civil Court of law under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is unambiguous in this regard.

¶25

38. Submitting an application for fixing boundary is an option available to the aggrieved persons. Once an application is filed, whether the application is entertainable under the provisions of the Act is to be determined by the authorities and only if it is falling within the ambit of the Act, then alone the survey or fixing of boundary is to be undertaken. Even in this case, the authorities are bound to relegate the parties to the competent Civil Court of law under Section 14 of the Act.

¶26

Page 3 of 6

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

W.P.No.18109 of 2023

¶29

39. It is contended by the petitioner that the authorities are making certain findings regarding the title, ownership in their order, while rejecting the applications. Such findings made by the authorities either in the patta proceedings or in the proceedings under the Survey and Boundaries Act are restricted and to be understood only for the purpose of arriving a conclusion under the provisions of the Act and the said patta proceedings or the proceedings under the Survey and Boundaries Act would not confer any title or be taken as a conclusive decision, more specifically under Section 35 of the Evidence Act.

¶30

40. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to consider the representations / applications submitted by the petitioners in the order of seniority and by following the procedures as contemplated under the Governmental orders and in consonance with the provisions of the Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law. Wherever the applications are already disposed of and appeals provided under the Act has been filed, then such appeals are to be decided on merits and in consonance with the provisions of the Survey and Boundaries Act.

¶31

Page 4 of 6

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

W.P.No.18109 of 2023

¶34

In view of the fact that the case of the petitioner is also similar to

¶35

that of the cases (cited supra ), the case of the petitioner is also to be considered on the same line. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶36

21.06.2023

¶37

skr Index : Yes Speaking order

¶38

¶39

The Tahsildar, Bargur Taluk, Krishnagiri District.

¶40

Page 5 of 6

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

W.P.No.18109 of 2023

¶43

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

¶44

skr

¶45

W.P.No.18109 of 2023

¶46

21.06.2023

¶47

Page 6 of 6

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.Chandran v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Chandran 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.Lakshmipathy Vs The Collector of Thiruvallur District.

E.Ganesan Vs the Inspector General of Registration

P.Kuppuswamy Vs Chandra

T.Elayaraja Vs The District Collector

V.Venkatesan Vs the District Collector

K.Duraisamy Vs the District Registrar(Administration)