Allowed

K.Pandiselvam v. The Tahsildar

Madras HC16 Aug 2024WP(MD)/19600/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai bench of Madras High Court allowed a writ petition praying for a mandamus to direct the Tahsildar and Town Surveyor to survey property, mark boundaries based on the petitioner's representation, and complete the exercise within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus issued to conduct survey and mark boundaries within eight weeks, requiring submission of title records and notice to interested parties.

K.Pandiselvam Vs The Tahsildar — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.19600 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 16.08.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.19600 of 2024

¶7

K.Pandiselvam .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Tahsildar, Pattukottai, Tanjore District. 2.The Town Surveyor, Pattukottai Municipality, Pattukottai, Tanjore District. .. Respondents

¶8

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to survey the property bearing New S.No.11/1 Punja of an extent of 2 acres 83 1/3 cents out of total extent of 4 acres 1 cent excluding an extent of 1 cent 17 2/3 cents on the south in Nainankulam Village, Pattukottai Taluk, Tanjore District and fix the boundary based on the petitioner's representation, dated 13.03.2024.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sundar Srinivasan

¶10

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

¶11

_________Page 1 of 4

¶12

W.P.(MD) No.19600 of 2024

¶13

For Respondents : Mr.P.Thambidurai Government Advocate

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to direct the respondents

¶16

to conduct survey and mark the boundaries of the property comprised in New S.No.11/1 measuring an extent of 2 acres 83 1/3 cents out of total extent of 4 acres 1 cent situated in Nainankulam Village, Pattukottai Taluk, Tanjore District by considering the petitioner's representation, dated 13.03.2024.

¶17

The case of the petitioner is that he has purchased the petition mentioned property under a registered sale deed, dated 23.07.2008 and he is in possession and enjoyment of the property. On 13.03.2023, the petitioner made an application to the 2^nd respondent requesting to conduct survey in the said property. On 14.03.2024, he had also paid necessary fee for the same. Since no further action has been taken on the side of the respondents, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶18

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶19

_________Page 2 of 4

¶20

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

¶21

W.P.(MD) No.19600 of 2024

¶22

Considering the request of the petitioner and also the fact that the petitioner has made his representation as early as in March, 2024, a Mandamus is issued to the respondents to conduct survey and mark the boundaries in the petition mentioned property. The petitioner shall submit all the relevant records to show his title to the property and the respondents shall, after issuing notice to the adjacent land owners and interested parties, hold an enquiry and thereafter proceed to pass orders either surveying and demarcating the property or rejecting the request. In the case of a rejection, a speaking order shall be passed. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

With the above directions, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No

¶24

costs.

¶25

16.08.2024

¶26

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes gbg

¶27

_________Page 3 of 4

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.(MD) No.19600 of 2024

P.T.ASHA, J.

gbg

1.The Tahsildar, Pattukottai, Tanjore District.

¶34

2.The Town Surveyor, Pattukottai Municipality, Pattukottai, Tanjore District.

¶35

W.P.(MD) No.19600 of 2024

¶36

16.08.2024

¶37

Page 4 of 4

¶38

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

K.Pandiselvam v. The Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Pandiselvam v. The Tahsildar

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

Shyam Vs The State of Tamilnadu

K.Karuppusamy Vs The District Collector

Prasanna Venkatesh Vs The Secretary

V.Sethuraman Vs The Tahsildar

Jeya Vs The District Collector

Govindaraj K Vs The Tahsildar