This court disposed of a writ petition filed for issuing a writ of mandamus to direct the Tahsildar to survey land and lay boundary stones. The court held that the matter falls under the settled principles in S.Sakkarai, directing the petitioner to approach authorities under the Survey and Boundaries Act.
No relief granted; petition disposed of without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.27726 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.09.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.27726 of 2023
Prabakaran
...Petitioner
Vs.
3.Thirumathi Sellammal ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1 st respondent to consider the petitioner's online application dated 22.08.2023 and survey the land situated in S.No.56/5C1 total to the extent of 1588 ½ sq.ft. situated at Devarayapuram Village, Senthamangalam Taluk, Namakkal District and lay the boundary stones.
F or Petitioner : Mr.K.A.Prabaharan For R1 & R2 : Mr.C.Jayaprakash Government Advocate
Page 1 of 6
W.P.No.27726 of 2023
ORDER
The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the 1 st respondent to consider the petitioner's online application dated 22.08.2023 and survey the land situated in S.No.56/5C1 total to the extent of 1588 ½ sq.ft. situated at Devarayapuram Village, Senthamangalam Taluk, Namakkal District and lay the boundary stones.
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:
“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.
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
Page 2 of 6
W.P.No.27726 of 2023
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.
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.
39. It is contended by the petitioner that the authorities are making certain findings regarding the
Page 3 of 6
W.P.No.27726 of 2023
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.
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.”
Page 4 of 6
W.P.No.27726 of 2023
that of the cases (cited supra ), the case of the petitioner is also to be
considered on the same line.
22.09.2023
cse
Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order
To
Page 5 of 6
W.P.No.27726 of 2023
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
cse
W.P.No.27726 of 2023
22.09.2023
Page 6 of 6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a Writ of Mandamus directing the Tahsildar to survey the land and lay boundary stones.
Whether the principles laid down in S.Sakkarai Vs. The Tashildhar regarding boundary disputes apply to the present case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
S.Sakkarai Vs. The Tashildhar, Dharmapuri DistrictReferred¶21
W.P.No.37519 of 2016 [S.Sakkarai Vs. The Tashildhar, Dharmapuri District]
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Prabakaran
The Tahsildar, Senthamangalam Taluk, Senthamangalam, Namakkal District
The Head Surveyor, Senthamangalam Taluk, Senthamangalam, Namakkal District
Thirumathi Sellammal
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
