Disposed

N.Kesavan v. The Tahsildar

Madras HC20 Jul 2023WP/21323/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, Justice S.M. Subramaniam disposed of the petition after noting that the issues regarding boundary and survey disputes have already been adjudicated in a broader batch of petitions. The court directed the authorities to reconsider the petition on merits following the relevant provisions of the Survey and Boundaries Act and CPC.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands disposed of; no costs awarded; the matter was referred to the lower authority for reconsideration on merits.

N.Kesavan Vs The Tahsildar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.21323 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 20.07.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

W.P.No.21323 of 2023

M.Kesavan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Tahsildar, Walaja, Ranipettai District.

¶11

2.The Surveyor, Walaja, Ranipettai District. ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct survey of petitioner land in Survey No.477/32 in Kizhminnal Madura Pootuthakku Village,Walaja, Vellore District based on the petitioner's application dated 21.12.2022.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sudharsan

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.D.Ravichander, Special Government Pleader

¶15

Page 1 of 6

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.21323 of 2023

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The writ petition has been filed for directing the respondents 1 and 2

¶20

to conduct survey of petitioner land in Survey No.477/32 in Kizhminnal Madura Pootuthakku Village, Walaja, Vellore District based on the petitioner's application dated 21.12.2022.

¶21

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:

¶22

“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”.

¶23

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

¶24

Page 2 of 6

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.No.21323 of 2023

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶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

¶30

Page 3 of 6

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.No.21323 of 2023

¶33

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.

¶34

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.

¶35

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

¶36

that of the cases (cited supra ), the case of the petitioner is also to be considered on the same line.

¶37

Page 4 of 6

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.No.21323 of 2023

¶40

Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶41

20.07.2023

¶42

skr Index : Yes Speaking order

¶43

To 1.The Tahsildar, Walaja, Ranipettai District.

¶44

2.The Surveyor, Walaja, Ranipettai District.

¶45

Page 5 of 6

¶46

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

¶47

W.P.No.21323 of 2023

¶48

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

¶49

skr

¶50

W.P.No.21323 of 2023

¶51

20.07.2023

¶52

Page 6 of 6

¶53

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

N.Kesavan v. The Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Kesavan 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

S.Padmanaban Vs the Chairman Cum Managing

Mohammed Faiz Basha Vs the Collector

Arul Vs The District Registrar

Thangavel Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

M.Mythili, Vs M.Govinda Rao IAS

Bridget peter Vs The Principal secretary