Disposed

Murugesan v. The Thasildar

Madras HC29 Jul 2024WP(MD)/9344/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of the matter at the admission stage and directed the survey authorities to conduct the survey of the petitioner's land following a detailed procedure for notice, objection handling, and police protection.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to survey authority to conduct survey with specific safeguards against dispossession including notice, objection period, and police protection.

Murugesan Vs The Thasildar — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.9344 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 29.07.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.9344 of 2024

Murugesan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

¶11

2.The Taluk Surveyor, Taluk Office, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukkottai District. ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to conduct survey petitioner's land in Patta no. 8790 situated at S.F.No. 27-11B and 12 at Chidambaravidhthi Revenue Village, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukkottai District with an extent of 0.45.50 ares by way of considering application Challan Number 20231012003580 dated 12.10.2023.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Jegadeeswaran

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.D.Sasikumar Additional Government Pleader

¶15

1/6

¶16

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

¶17

W.P(MD)No.9344 of 2024

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner has applied to the jurisdictional authority for conducting survey of the petition mentioned lands and for demarcation of the boundaries.

¶20

Since the authority had not acted upon the petitioner's request, this writ petition came to be filed.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

(I) The petitioner is directed to submit his / her application in

¶24

on-line mode. The survey authority will scrutinize if the application submitted by the petitioner is in order. Patta need not be in the name of the applicant. If patta is in the name of the vendor and mutation has not been effected, still the application can be considered.

¶25

(II) The petitioner will have to enclose all the relevant documents such as patta. The applicant must have individual patta in his / her name. If he / she is having joint patta, co-pattadars must give their consent for conducting survey.

¶26

(III) The survey authority will issue notice to the writ

¶27

2/6

¶28

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

¶29

W.P(MD)No.9344 of 2024

¶30

petitioner as well as the adjacent land owners and also to the interested persons, if any.

¶31

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

¶32

(V) If according to the jurisdictional authority, the 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. If any suit is filed, subject to plaint being in order, it shall be numbered immediately. If any interlocutory application is filed, it shall be disposed of on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks thereafter.

¶33

(VI) It is open to the parties to serve memo of instructions to

¶34

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.

¶35

(VII) If the jurisdictional authority finds objections to be having substance, then, he shall call upon the applicant to move the

¶36

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

¶37

3/6

¶38

W.P(MD)No.9344 of 2024

¶39

jurisdictional civil Court for agitating his rights.

¶40

(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.

¶41

(IX) It is made clear that at the end of the survey exercise, 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. If the petitioner wants to put up fencing and if there is any objection from any private party, fencing can be put up only after the petitioner obtains decree from the jurisdictional Civil Court.

¶42

(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.

¶43

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

¶44

29.07.2024

¶45

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No rmi

¶46

4/6

¶47

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

¶48

W.P(MD)No.9344 of 2024

¶49

¶50

1.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

¶51

2.The Taluk Surveyor, Taluk Office, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

¶52

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

¶53

5/6

¶54

W.P(MD)No.9344 of 2024

¶55

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶56

rmi

¶57

W.P(MD)No.9344 of 2024

¶58

29.07.2024

¶59

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

¶60

6/6

Murugesan v. The Thasildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murugesan v. The Thasildar

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

Santhanam Vs The Inspector of Police

Kamatchi. P Vs The District Registrar

Kamatchi .P Vs The District Collector

Manju Vs The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Irdai)

Parvathi Devi .K Vs The Special District Revenue Officer

Jeyalakshmi J Vs The Commissioner of Police