Dismissed

K.v.Komarasamy, v. The Revenue Tahsildhar

Madras HC1 Aug 2023WP/879/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a survey notice issued in 2018. The Court observed that time had lapsed and relevance was lost. It held that under the Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, surveys cannot proceed if objections are raised, requiring recourse to civil court instead. The petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; no costs awarded; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

K.v.Komarasamy, Vs The Revenue Tahsildhar — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.879 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 01.08.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

W.P.No.879 of 2018

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.Nos.1063 & 1064 of 2018

¶9

K.V.Komarasamy ... Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.The Revenue Tahsildhar, Anthiyur, Anthiyur Taluk, Erode District.

¶12

2.Mrs.Kavitha ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 08.01.2018 having reference Petition No.150/2017/s1 passed by the 1 st respondent and quash the same and pass such further or other orders to meet the ends of justice and award cost and thus render justice.

¶14

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

¶15

Page 1 of 4

¶16

W.P.No.879 of 2018

¶17

For Petitioner	: Mr.E.P.Senniyangiri
For R1	: Mr.G.Krishna Raja Additional Government Pleader
For R2	: Mr.S.Ram Prabhu For Mr.S.P.Yuaraj

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The order impugned dated 08.01.2018 states that the notice was issued pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.26647 of 2017 dated 12.10.2017.

¶20

The Revenue Tahsildar issued the impugned notice for the purpose

¶21

of conducting survey. Since the son of the petitioner raised an objection, the petitioner has chosen to file the present writ petition.

¶22

3. The impugned notice was issued in the year 2018 and now five years lapsed. Thus, the relevance indicated in the impugned order is lost and therefore, no further consideration is required.

¶23

4. It is needless to state that under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu

¶24

Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, the Government Authorities may conduct

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.No.879 of 2018

¶28

survey only if there is no objection from any other person. In the event of any other objection, the parties are to be relegated to approach the Competent Civil Court of Law for the purpose of resolving the issues. The Government cannot forcible conduct survey over ruling the objection and therefore, question of conducting survey in respect of the subject property at this length of time would not arise at all.

¶29

5. Accordingly, this Writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶30

01.08.2023

¶31

Jeni Index : Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes To

¶32

The Revenue Tahsildhar, Anthiyur, Anthiyur Taluk, Erode District.

¶33

Page 3 of 4

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.No.879 of 2018

¶36

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

¶37

Jeni

¶38

W.P.No.879 of 2018

¶39

01.08.2023

¶40

Page 4 of 4

¶41

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

K.v.Komarasamy, v. The Revenue Tahsildhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.v.Komarasamy, v. The Revenue Tahsildhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Pushparani Vs The Inspector General of Registration

R.Mukunthan, Vs Inspector General of Registration

N.Sathyanarayana Vs The Deputy General Manager

S.Ramesh Vs The Union of India

A.J.Vasanthi Asir Vs The District Collector

The Project Director Vs P.Jagadeesan