Disposed¶32

T.Arul Vedi v. the Tahsildar

Madras HC19 Nov 2025WP/44341/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; W.P.No.44341 of 2025; Justice N. Anand Venkatesh; writ of certiorarified mandamus; land survey dispute; rejection of survey application; Firka Surveyor Kallavi Firka; Head Surveyor / Deputy Inspector of Survey; Tahsildar Uthangarai Taluk; Krishnagiri; sale deed dated 02.07.1982 Doc.No.558/1982; grandmother Mariammal; fresh online application; survey within four weeks; interested parties presence; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions: petitioner to file fresh online application before the first respondent with all necessary particulars and payment of necessary charges; respondents to conduct survey of the subject property based on the petitioner's title documents, completing the process within four weeks of receipt of the fresh online application, in the presence of any interested parties; no costs.

T.Arul Vedi Vs the Tahsildar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the third respondent's rejection of the petitioner's application for survey of the schedule property should be quashed and the third respondent directed to survey the schedule property within a time frame stipulated by the Court.

¶12

Court's answer

The petitioner is directed to submit a fresh application through online to the first respondent along with all necessary particulars and payment of necessary charges.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

On receipt of the fresh online application, the respondents shall act upon it and conduct the survey in the subject property based on the title documents relied upon by the petitioner.

¶31

Key takeaways

The entire process shall be completed by the respondents within four weeks from the date of receipt of the fresh online application from the petitioner.ratio¶31
If there are any other interested parties, the survey shall be conducted in their presence.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Art. 226) disposed of by the Madras High Court (N. Anand Venkatesh, J.) on 19.11.2025. The petitioner, claiming title through a sale deed dated 02.07.1982 (Doc.No.558/1982) purchased by his grandmother Mariammal, challenged the third respondent Firka Surveyor's order dated 08.04.2005 (based on application No.2024/0123/31/006139) which had rejected his survey application on the ground that he was not present at the time of survey. The Court did not decide title; instead it directed the petitioner to submit a fresh online application to the first respondent (Tahsildar, Uthangarai Taluk) with all necessary particulars and payment of necessary charges, upon receipt of which the respondents were to conduct the survey based on the title documents relied upon by the petitioner, completing the entire process within four weeks and in the presence of any other interested parties. No costs.

¶1

W.P.No.44341 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 19.11.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

W.P.No.44341 of 2025

¶7

T.Arul Vedi .... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

1.The Tahsildar Uthangarai Taluk Krishnagiri – 635 304.

¶10

2.The Head Surveyor / Deputy Inspector of Surveyor Land Survey Section Taluk Office, Uthangarai Taluk Krishnagiri – 635 207.

¶11

3.Firka Surveyor Kallavi Firka Land Survey Section Taluk Office, Uthangarai Taluk Krishnagiri – 635 207. .... Respondents

¶12

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 3^rd respondent leading to the issuance of the order dated 08.04.2005 based on the application bearing No.2024/0123/31/006139 filed by the petitioner and quash the same and consequently direct the third respondent to survey the schedule property, within a time frame stipulated by this Court and pass orders.

¶13

1/5

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.No.44341 of 2025

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Arul Vedi (Party-in-Person) For Respondents : Mr.C.Jayaprakash Government Advocate [R1 to R3]

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned

¶19

proceedings of the third respondent and for a consequential direction to the

¶20

third respondent to survey the subject property.

¶21

Heard Mr.T.Arul Vedi, party-in-person and Mr.C.Jayaprakash,

¶22

learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶23

The petitioner is claiming right and title over the subject property

¶24

which was purchased by the petitioner's grandmother Mariammal, by virtue of a sale deed dated 02.07.1982 registered as Doc.No.558/1982. The petitioner claims to be under the care and guidance of his grandmother. An application was submitted by the petitioner seeking for survey of the subject property. However, the third respondent has rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner was not present at the time of survey. It is under

¶25

2/5

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.No.44341 of 2025

¶28

Court.

¶29

these circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

¶30

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case

¶31

and the materials placed before this Court, there shall be a direction to the petitioner to submit a fresh application through online to the first respondent along with all necessary particulars and payment of necessary charges. On receipt of the same, the respondents shall act upon the application and conduct survey in the subject property based on the title documents relied upon by the petitioner. The entire process shall be completed by the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of fresh online application from the petitioner. If there are any other interested parties, such survey shall be conducted in their presence.

¶32