Disposed

N.Ambal v. the District Collector

Madras HC22 Jun 2023WP/18232/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking a mandate for the Tahsildar to survey the petitioner's land. Adopting a batch judgment, the Court held that parties have the option to approach the Civil Court for boundary disputes and directed the authorities to consider representations.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands disposed of without costs based on the judgment in a batch of earlier petitions; no specific court orders were passed in this petition.

N.Ambal Vs the District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.18232 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 22.06.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

W.P.No.18232 of 2023

N.Ambal

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

¶11

2.The Tahsildar, Sriperumpudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District.

¶12

3.The Inspector of Police, Nazerathpet Police Station, Tiruvallur District.

¶13

4.Mr.Paramasivan

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2 nd respondent to survey petitioner's land in survey No.402/2A as per patta No.2198, Survey No.402/2A1A2 Plot No.22, in Sriram Nagar Layout, Pazhanjur, Mevalurkuppam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District by considering his representation dated 12.09.2022.

¶16

Page 1 of 7

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.No.18232 of 2023

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Murugan For R1 to R3 : Mr.T.Arunkumar, Additional Government Pleader

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the 2nd respondent to survey petitioner's land in survey No.402/2A as per patta No.2198, Survey No.402/2A1A2 Plot No.22, in Sriram Nagar Layout, Pazhanjur, Mevalurkuppam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District by considering his representation dated 12.09.2022.

¶22

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 [S.Sakkarai Vs.

¶23

The Tashildhar, Dharmapuri District] etc., and batch , and a judgment was delivered on 19.06.2023 and the relevant paragraphs of the judgment are extracted hereunder:

¶24

“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

¶25

Page 2 of 7

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.No.18232 of 2023

¶28

cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred”.

¶29

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.

¶30

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,

¶31

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

¶32

Page 3 of 7

¶33

W.P.No.18232 of 2023

¶34

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.

¶35

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.

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

Page 4 of 7

¶39

W.P.No.18232 of 2023

¶40

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.”

¶41

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

¶42

22.06.2023

¶43

Jeni Index : Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes

¶44

Page 5 of 7

¶45

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

¶46

W.P.No.18232 of 2023

¶47

¶48