Dismissed

Wilson Gynanamuthu v. The Tahsildar

Madras HC3 Dec 2024WP(MD)/6196/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking direction to the Head Surveyor to survey and demarcate property boundaries with police protection. The Court noted an identical petition filed previously and disposed of that earlier petition without examining merits, maintaining the status quo. Finding no merit in the present petition for lack of ground to act, the petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no order as to costs.

Wilson Gynanamuthu Vs The Tahsildar — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.6196 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 03.12.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA

¶6

W.P(MD)No.6196 of 2023

Wilson Gynanamuthu

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Thasildar, Tahsildar Office, Madurai North, Madurai District.

¶11

2.The Head Surveyor, Tahsildar Office, Madurai North, Madurai District.

¶12

3.The Inspector of Police, Jaihindhpuram Police Station, Madurai District. ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to survey, demarcate four boundaries of petitioner's property situated in Survey No.12/5B, Periyapatti Village, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District admeasuring 0.14.55 ares (Patta No.588) with the help of the police protection to be accorded by the third

¶14

1/5

¶15

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

¶16

W.P(MD)No.6196 of 2023

¶17

respondent by considering his representation, dated 02.01.2023 and pass such further or other orders as this Court.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.R.L.Dhilipan Pandian For Respondents : Mr.K.Gnanasekaran Government Advocate

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This writ petition is filed for a direction to the second respondent to survey, demarcate the four boundaries of petitioner's lands in Survey No.12/5B, Periyapatti Village, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District admeasuring 0.14.55 ares (Patta No.588) with the help of the police protection.

¶21

2. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents produced a copy of the order of this Court, dated 10.06.2024, passed in W.P(MD)No.12068 of 2024, and submitted that the very same petitioner filed the said writ petition for the same prayer and this Court disposed of the writ petition with directions issued therein. The learned Government Advocate for the respondents therefore submitted that writ petition sans merit and the same deserved to be dismissed. The order passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition

¶22

2/5

¶23

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

¶24

W.P(MD)No.6196 of 2023

¶25

reads as follows:

¶26

"3. The second respondent shall pass formal order on the objection received from the objector. The objector shall be given six weeks time from the date of receipt of a copy of the order to be passed by the second respondent. If the order is in favour of the petitioner, at the end of the breathing period of six weeks, the objector is unable to obtain any interim order, survey shall be held. If the order is in favour of the objector and against the petitioner, the petitioner has to move the Court once again. The second respondent as well as the concerned authority will bear in mind that the object of conducting survey is to lay four boundaries and there shall not be any dispossession from permitting put up of fence. In other words, status quo on ground that originally prevailed prior to survey shall continue to be maintained. The second respondent is directed to pass order on the objection received from the objector within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. I make it clear that I have not gone into the merits of the matter."

¶27

3. In the light of the above directions issued by this Court, I find

¶28

no merit in the present writ petition and hence, the same is dismissed. Needless to state that the respondents shall comply with the aforesaid

¶29

3/5

¶30

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

¶31

W.P(MD)No.6196 of 2023

¶32

directions of this Court in letter and spirit. There shall be no order as to

¶33

costs.

¶34

03.12.2024

¶35

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes BTR

¶36

¶37

1.The Thasildar, Tahsildar Office, Madurai North, Madurai District.

¶38

2.The Head Surveyor, Tahsildar Office, Madurai North, Madurai District.

¶39

3.The Inspector of Police, Jaihindhpuram Police Station, Madurai District.

¶40

4/5

¶41

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

¶42

W.P(MD)No.6196 of 2023

¶43

N.MALA, J.

¶44

BTR

¶45

Order made in W.P(MD)No.6196 of 2023

¶46

03.12.2024

¶47

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

Wilson Gynanamuthu v. The Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Wilson Gynanamuthu 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

Yogalakshmi.v Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Nachammal Vs The Tahsildar

Shanmugaiya P Vs The District Collector

Mariyappan Vs The District Collector

Kumarappan Servai, Vs the District Collector

Kumar Vs The Thasildar