Disposed

Kanimozhi v. the District Collector

Madras HC1 Mar 2023WP(MD)/22186/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition was disposed of with directions to the Collector and Tahsildar to survey and demarcate disputed lands. The Court permitted a fresh application, mandated inclusivity in notices, required police protection, forbade fencing during the survey, and clarified that the exercise would not result in dispossession.

What did the court decide?

Directing the survey authority to conduct a survey after 6 weeks, serve notices, seek police aid if needed, and refrain from installing fencing during the exercise.

Kanimozhi Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.22186 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 01.03.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.22186 of 2021

¶7

Kanimozhi ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

1.The District Collector, Dindigul District.

¶10

2.The Tahsildar, Vedachandur Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶11

3.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District.

¶12

4.The Inspector of Police, Vadamadurai Police Station, Dindigul District.

¶13

5.Vengayee Ammal ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to survey, demarcate and fix boundary for the land in Survey No.966/5 having an extent of Hectare 0.2.00, Survey No.966/2 having an extent of Hectare 0.13.00 and Survey No.966/1 having an extent of Hectare 0.27.00 comprised having an

¶15

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

¶16

1/6

¶17

W.P(MD)No.22186 of 2021

¶18

extent of the Ayyallur Village, Vedachandur Taluk, Dindugal District by demarcating and fixing the boundary in the presence of fourth respondent police.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.Muthumalai Raja For Respondents : Mr.M.Lingadurai Special Government Pleader for R.1 & R.2

¶20

Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for R.3 & R.4

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner has applied to the jurisdictional authority for conducting

¶23

survey of the petition mentioned lands and for demarcation of the boundaries. Since the authority had not acted upon the petitioner's request, this writ petition came to be filed.

¶24

The Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

¶25

(I) The petitioner is permitted to submit a fresh application for

¶26

conducting survey. The survey authority will issue notice to the writ petitioner as well as the adjacent land owners and also to the interested persons, if any.

¶27

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

¶28

2/6

¶29

W.P(MD)No.22186 of 2021

¶30

(II) Enquiry shall be held. During enquiry, objections raised by

¶31

the adjacent land owners / interested persons shall be considered.

¶32

(III) If according to the jurisdictional authority, the objections

¶33

are without any basis, the same shall be overruled and the objectors shall be informed accordingly. But the survey will be conducted only after a period of six weeks so that the objector can move the concerned Court for injunction. If before the proposed date of survey, the objector is unable to obtain any injunction order, the survey can very well go on. It is open to the parties to serve memo of instructions to the surveyor at the time of conducting the survey. The same will be borne in mind. While it cannot be binding on the surveyor, the same will be taken note of.

¶34

(IV) If the jurisdictional authority finds objections to be having substance, then, he shall call upon the applicant to move the jurisdictional civil Court for agitating his rights.

¶35

(V) If required, the survey authority is empowered to seek aid of the jurisdictional police and the jurisdictional police are mandated to grant police protection.

¶36

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

¶37

3/6

¶38

W.P(MD)No.22186 of 2021

¶39

(VI) It is made clear that at the end of the survey exercise,

¶40

survey stones alone can be installed. The exercise of survey and demarcation undertaken pursuant to the direction of this Court can never result in dispossession of any party. No person shall put up fencing at the time of survey by using police aid. The Survey Authority will pass order within a period of six weeks after service of notice on the interested persons.

¶41

(VII) A copy of the survey report will be served on the parties also.

¶42

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶43

01.03.2023

¶44

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No MGA

¶45

¶46

1.The District Collector, Dindigul District.

¶47

2.The Tahsildar, Vedachandur Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶48

3.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District.

¶49

4/6

¶50

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

¶51

W.P(MD)No.22186 of 2021

¶52

4.The Inspector of Police, Vadamadurai Police Station, Dindigul District.

¶53

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

¶54

5/6

¶55

W.P(MD)No.22186 of 2021

¶56

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶57

MGA

¶58

W.P(MD)No.22186 of 2021

¶59

01.03.2023

¶60

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/6

Kanimozhi v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanimozhi v. the District Collector

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

Masilamani Vs The Director

Lakshmanan Suppiramaniyan Vs The Regional Passport Officer

Meenakshi Sundaram.K.R Vs The District Registrar

Baluchamy.P Vs The Tahsildar

Selvaraj Vs The Tahsildar

K.Kavitha, Vs S.Krishnasamy