Disposed

Neethi.M v. The Tahsildar

Madras HC17 Nov 2023WP(MD)/9996/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking directions for survey and demarcation of disputed land. The Court issued detailed directions to the survey authority regarding scrutiny, notice, inquiry, police protection, and limitations on fencing, ensuring the process is completed within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to the survey authority to conduct survey, issue notices, conduct inquiry, allow objections, seek police aid if required, and conclude within six weeks; fencing during survey prohibi

Neethi.M Vs The Tahsildar — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.9996 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 17.11.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.9996 of 2023

M.Neethi

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Tahsildar, Thiruvengadam Taluk, Tenkasi District – 627 719.

¶11

2.The Surveyor, Office of the Tahsildar, Thiruvengadam Taluk, Tenkasi District – 627 719.

¶12

3.The Sub Inspector of Police, Ayyapuram Police Station, Thiruvengadam Taluk, Tenkasi District.

¶13

4.M.Samy

¶14

5.M.Malathi

¶15

6.M.Mariappan

¶16

1/6

¶17

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

¶18

W.P(MD)No.9996 of 2023

¶19

7.M.Kalipandi

¶20

8.M.Muthupandi (R.4 to R.8 were impleaded vide order of this Court dated 06.07.2023) ... Respondents

¶21

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to properly measure the entire land comprised in Survey No. 618/19, measuring extent of 26 cents situate at Sayamalai Village Part-I, Thiruvengadam Taluk, Tenkasi District, demarcate and prepare a proper plan indicating the land in the FMB available with the Taluk office based on considering the petitioner's representation dated 26.12.2022.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Muthuvelan For Respondents : Mr.K.Balasubramani Special Government Pleader for R.1 to R.3

¶23

Mr.R.J.Karthick for R.4 to R.8

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner has applied to the jurisdictional authority for

¶26

conducting 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.

¶27

2/6

¶28

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

¶29

W.P(MD)No.9996 of 2023

¶30

2.This writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself. It

¶31

is open to any aggrieved party to move this Court either by way of review or recall of this order, if there is any suppression of material facts by the petitioner.

¶32

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

¶33

(I) The survey authority will scrutinize if the application submitted by the petitioner is in order.

¶34

(II) The petitioner will have to enclose all the relevant documents such as patta. If the petitioner is having only a joint patta, he must get consent from co-pattadors for conducting survey.

¶35

(III) 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.

¶36

(IV) Enquiry shall be held. During enquiry, objections raised by the adjacent land owners / interested persons shall be considered.

¶37

3/6

¶38

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

¶39

W.P(MD)No.9996 of 2023

¶40

(V) If according to the jurisdictional authority, the

¶41

objections 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.

¶42

(VI) It is open to the parties to serve memo of instructions to the surveyor at the time of conducting survey. The same will be borne in mind. While it cannot be binding on the surveyor, the same will be taken note of.

¶43

(VII) 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.

¶44

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

¶45

(IX) It is made clear that at the end of the survey exercise, survey stones alone can be installed. The exercise of

¶46

4/6

¶47

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

¶48

W.P(MD)No.9996 of 2023

¶49

survey and demarcation undertaken pursuant to the direction of

¶50

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.

¶51

(X) The survey authority will conclude the entire exercise one way or the other within a period of six weeks after service of notice on the interested persons.

¶52

(XI) A copy of the survey report along with sketch will be served on the parties. No costs.

¶53

17.11.2023

¶54

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

¶55

¶56

1.The Tahsildar, Thiruvengadam Taluk, Tenkasi District – 627 719.

¶57

2.The Surveyor, Office of the Tahsildar, Thiruvengadam Taluk, Tenkasi District – 627 719.

¶58

5/6

¶59

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

¶60

W.P(MD)No.9996 of 2023

¶61

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶62

MGA

¶63

3.The Sub Inspector of Police, Ayyapuram Police Station, Thiruvengadam Taluk, Tenkasi District.

¶64

W.P(MD)No.9996 of 2023

¶65

17.11.2023

¶66

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

¶67

6/6

Neethi.M v. The Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neethi.M v. The Tahsildar

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

Raju.S Vs The District Collector

Sulaiman Badushah Vs District Sub-registrar

Suresh.K Vs The Director General

Plr and Co. Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

Ramachandran v Vs The Sub Registrar

Bose. Skl Vs The Commissioner of Land Administration