Allowed

K.Karuppaiah v. The Tahsildar

Madras HC24 Sept 2024WP(MD)/22603/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a Tahsildar's order directing a land survey without reasons or enquiry, contrary to earlier High Court directions. The Court set aside both the order dated 10.09.2024 and the survey conducted on 20.09.2024, directing fresh consideration of objections, a speaking order, and then survey.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 10.09.2024 and survey dated 20.09.2024 set aside; fresh speaking order within eight weeks after considering objections.

K.Karuppaiah Vs The Tahsildar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.22603 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 24.09.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.22603 of 2024 and

¶7

W.M.P(MD)Nos.19149 & 19151 of 2024

¶8

K.Karuppaiah .. Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Tahsildar, Aundipatti Taluk, Theni District.

¶11

2.The Taluk Surveyor, Aundipatti Taluk, Theni District.

¶12

3.Amaravathi .. Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order Na.Ka.No.2660/2024/S1, dated 10.09.2024 passed by the 1^st respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently forbear, the 2^nd respondent to survey the land in S.Nos. 1795/2A situated at Thimarasanayakkanur Bit 2 Village, Aundipatti, Theni District till the disposal of the Civil Suit filed by the petitioner in

¶14

_________Page 1 of 6

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(MD) No.22603 of 2024

¶17

O.S.No.168 of 2024 on the file of the Learned Sub Court, Theni by this Court.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.J.M.Arvind Pawlraj For R1 & R2 : Mr.B.Saravanan Additional Government Pleader

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order, dated 10.09.2024 passed by the 1^st respondent and to quash the same.

¶21

From the reading of the impugned order, it is seen that no reason whatsoever has been given by the 1^st respondent. This Court in its order, dated 06.03.2024 had originally directed the respondent to conduct survey with certain conditions. One of which was that the enquiry should be held and during the enquiry, objections raised should be considered and if the objections are without basis, the same shall be overruled. This was reiterated later by this Court on012.06.2024 in W.P(MD)No.12348 of 2024 that if the authorities failed to adhere to the order passed by this Court, dated 06.03.2024, they would become liable for contempt.

¶22

_________Page 2 of 6

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.(MD) No.22603 of 2024

¶25

Thereafter, the impugned order, dated 10.09.2024 has been passed. The only reason that has been given by the first respondent is as follows:

¶26

“kDjhuu; kw;Wk; Ml;Nrgidjhuu; toq;fpa Mtzq;fs; guprPyid nra;ag;gl;ljpy; Ml;Nrgidjhuu;

¶27

Njdp rhu;G ePjpkd;wj;jpy; O.S.No.168/2014 tof;F njhlu;e;Js;sJk; mjpy; jpU.mkuhtjp vd;gtiu

¶28

gpujpthjpahf Nru;j;Js;sJk; njupatUfpwJ. Mdhy; tl;lhl;rpauhy; toq;fg;gl;l epymsit Nehl;B]pw;F ehsJ Njjptiu jilahiz VJk; ngwg;gltpy;iy vd;gJk; njupatUfpwJ. vdNt khz;gik W.P(MD)No.5225 of 2024 ehs;: 06.03.2024 y; gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;Ls;s cj;jutpid epiwNtw;w MW thu fhyk; flik vd;gjhYk; Ml;Nrgid kDjhuuhy; jilahiz rku;g;gpf;ftpy;iy vd;gjhYk; jpU.fUg;igah vd;gtu; mspj;Js;s Ml;Nrgid kDthdJ js;Sgb nra;ag;gLfpwJ vd;w tpguk; njuptpf;fg;gLfpwJ. NkYk; Gjpjhf 20.09.2024 md;W epy msit nra;jpl cj;Njrpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. Mjw;Fs; epymsit

¶29

Nkw;nfhs;sTs;s ehl;fSf;Fs; Ml;Nrgidjhuu; fPoik

¶30

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

¶31

_________Page 3 of 6

¶32

W.P.(MD) No.22603 of 2024

¶33

ePjpkd;wj;jpy; jhf;fy; nra;Js;s tof;fpy; jilahiz ngw;W rku;g;gpf;Fk; gl;rj;jpy; mtuJ Nfhupf;if guprPyidf;F vLj;Jf;nfhs;sg;gLk; vd;w tpguk; njuptpf;fg;gLfpwJ.”

¶34

Mere reading of this would clearly show the non-application of mind on the part of the Tahsildar. It is also informed before this Court that, thereafter, a survey has been conducted on 20.09.2024.

¶35

In view of the above, the impugned order, dated 10.09.2024 is set aside and the survey conducted on 20.09.2024 is also set aside. The 1^st respondent shall consider the objections afresh and thereafter, proceed with the survey. A speaking order shall be passed within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶36

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

¶37

costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶38

24.09.2024

¶39

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No

¶40

_________Page 4 of 6

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.(MD) No.22603 of 2024

Internet : Yes

gbg

1.The Tahsildar, Aundipatti Taluk, Theni District.

¶47

2.The Taluk Surveyor, Aundipatti Taluk, Theni District.

¶48

Page 5 of 6

¶49

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

¶50

W.P.(MD) No.22603 of 2024

¶51

P.T.ASHA, J.

¶52

gbg

¶53

W.P.(MD) No.22603 of 2024

¶54

24.09.2024

¶55

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

¶56

_________Page 6 of 6

K.Karuppaiah v. The Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Karuppaiah 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

Kalaiarasi Vs The District Collector

Selvaraj Vs The Special Tahsildar

Tamimul Ansari Vs K.Senthilkumar

V.Parvathy, W/O.Viswanathan Vs the District Collector

K.Sekar Vs The Tahsildar

Ramasamy Vs The Tahsildar