Disposed

Sikkanthar Beevi v. the Tahsildar

Madras HC6 Oct 2023WP(MD)/13850/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench directed the Tahsildar and Taluk Surveyor to survey the petitioner's land at Thirumangalam based on the applicant's representation, considering title deeds of both parties to avoid boundary conflicts, mandating completion within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to conduct survey of T.S.No.14/14 based on title deeds of parties within four weeks; police protection to be considered.

Sikkanthar Beevi Vs the Tahsildar — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

WP(MD)No.13850 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 06.10.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.13850 of 2020

Sikkanthar Beevi

...Petitioner

/Vs./

1.The Tahsildar, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District.

¶11

2.The Taluk Surveyor, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District.

¶12

3.The Inspector of Police, Thirumangalam Town Police Station, Madurai District.

¶13

4.Murugeshwari ...Respondents

¶14

PRAYER:- Petition - filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents No.1 to 3 to take necessary steps to measure the land and fix the four boundaries bearing S.F.No.288/5 (Town Survey No.14/14) to an extent of 0.1.18.0 Sq.mt., situated at Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District belonging to the petitioner with the necessary police protection by considering the petitioner's representation dated 15.06.2020 within a stipulated time in accordance with law.

¶15

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

¶16

1/5

¶17

WP(MD)No.13850 of 2020

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Prabu For Respondents : Mr.R.Ragavendran (R1 & R2) Government Advocate Mr.R.Sivakumar (R3) Government Advocate

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to survey the subject property in T.S.No.14/14 based on the representation made by the petitioner on 15.06.2020.

¶21

2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that an attempt was made to survey the property and that there was objection raised by the fourth respondent and therefore, survey was not done.

¶22

3. Heard Mr.M.Prabu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.R.Ragavendran, learned Government Advocate for the first and second respondents and Mr.R.Sivakumar, learned Government Advocate for the third respondent.

¶23

2/5

¶24

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

¶25

WP(MD)No.13850 of 2020

¶26

4. In the considered view of this Court, the entire confusion has arisen since originally, the property formed part of S.No.288/5. Thereafter, there was a sub-division and the relevant town survey numbers were allotted to all the respective owners of the property. Admittedly, the fourth respondent is the owner of T.S.No.14/10, whereas the petitioner is the owner of T.S.No.14/14. Both of them are claiming their rights through their respective title deeds. Therefore, there must be no difficulty in conducting the survey to the property, based on the title deeds of the respective parties, which will contain four boundaries. Infact the fourth respondent was permitted survey to be conducted while granting the relief which was sought for by her in WP(MD)No.16852 of 2020, disposed by this Court by order dated 06.10.2023.

¶27

5. In the light of the above discussion, there shall be a direction to the first and second respondents to conduct survey in the subject property in TS No. 14/14 at Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District, based on the application submitted by the petitioner. The surveyor shall take into account the title deed of the petitioner and the title deed of the fourth respondent and proceed further with the survey and complete the same. This Court expects that the fourth respondent will not create any law and order problem at the time of conducting survey.

¶28

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

¶29

3/5

¶30

WP(MD)No.13850 of 2020

¶31

¶32

6. This process shall be completed by the first and second respondents

¶33

within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This writ petition is disposed with the above directions. No costs.

¶34

06.10.2023 NCC : Yes/No (2/2) Internet :Yes/No Index :Yes/No

¶35

TO:

¶36

1.The Tahsildar, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District.

¶37

2.The Taluk Surveyor, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District.

¶38

3.The Inspector of Police, Thirumangalam Town Police Station, Madurai District.

¶39

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

¶40

4/5

¶41

WP(MD)No.13850 of 2020

¶42

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

¶43

¶44

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.13850 of 2020 (2/2)

¶45

Dated: 06.10.2023

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/5

Sikkanthar Beevi v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sikkanthar Beevi v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagaraj Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

K.Ramakrishnan Vs the Inspector General of Registration(for Societies)

Kalaivani Vs Union Bank of India

Rukmani Vs the Dist.Collector

M. Vivek Vs the Reserve Bank of India(Rbi)

Dheepan Vs the Regional Director