Disposed¶29

Duraiappan v. The Tahsildar

Mandamus – survey application

Madras HC17 Mar 2025WP(MD)/1431/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ of mandamus; survey/measurement application dated 02.12.2022 rejected as sale-deed extent, site extent and boundaries not tallying; Tahsildar Kulithalai, Karur District; patta No.465; old Survey No.492/5 new Survey No.492/5A1A; Maruthur Village; second respondent's objection; liberty to reapply after curing defects; fresh survey in presence of objector with advance notice; Article 226; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; disposed of, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions: liberty to file a fresh application after curing the defects noted in the rejection; any fresh survey to be conducted in the presence of the second respondent after advance notice to him and other interested parties; no costs. ¶29

Duraiappan Vs The Tahsildar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the first respondent (Tahsildar) to pass orders on the petitioner's application dated 02.12.2022 for carrying out survey/measurement of his property comprised in patta No.465 at Karur District.

¶21

Court's answer

Since orders have already been passed on the petitioner's application (it having been rejected), no positive direction can be issued to the writ petitioner in a petition seeking only a mandamus.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

Liberty is given to the writ petitioner to make an appropriate application before the concerned authority after complying with the defects pointed out by the authorities while rejecting the application dated 02.12.2022.

¶28

Key takeaways

If a survey is conducted based on the fresh application, it shall be conducted in the presence of the second respondent, after giving advance notice to the second respondent as well as other interested parties.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Mandamus - survey application - Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), P.B. Balaji, J., disposed of W.P.(MD)No.1431 of 2024 filed under Article 226 seeking a direction to the Tahsildar, Kulithalai, Karur District, to pass orders on the petitioner Duraiappan's application dated 02.12.2022 for measurement/survey of old Survey No.492/5, new Survey No.492/5A1A, patta No.465, Nadupattipalam, Pannikampatti, Maruthur Village. The Court recorded that the application had already been rejected because the extent in the sale deed, the extent on site and the four boundaries did not tally, and that an earlier survey could not be conducted owing to the second respondent Manoharan's objection. Holding that no positive mandamus could issue where orders had already been passed, the Court granted liberty to move afresh after curing the defects, and directed that any survey on the fresh application be conducted in the second respondent's presence after advance notice to him and other interested parties. Disposed of, no costs.

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.1431 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 17.03.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.1431 of 2024

Duraiappan

... Petitioner

/Vs./

1.The Tahsildar, O/o. the Taluk Office, Kulithalai, Karur District.

¶11

2.Manoharan

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on application dated 02.12.2022 for carrying out measurement in respect of old survey No.492/5 new Survey No. 492/5A1A in patta No.465 at Nadupattipalam, Pannikampatti, Maruthur Village, Kulithalai Taluk, Karur District within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Illanchezian For R1 : Mr.S.Kameswaran Government Advocate

¶15

1/5

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.(MD)No.1431 of 2024

¶18

For R2 : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Heard Mr.V.Illanchezian, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.S.Kameswaran, learned Government Advocate for the first respondent and Mr.S.Deenadhayalan, learned counsel for the second respondent.

¶21

2.The writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to pass orders on the petitioner's application dated 02.12.2022 for carrying out survey of the petitioner's property comprised in patta No.465 at Karur District.

¶22

3.It has been brought to the notice of this Court, vide written instructions dated 10.02.2024, that because of the objection of the second respondent, the survey could not be conducted earlier. However, today, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent, on instructions, would submit that the application of the petitioner, dated 02.12.2022, has been rejected on the ground that the extent mentioned in

¶23

2/5

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.(MD)No.1431 of 2024

¶26

the sale deed and the extent on site as well as the four boundaries are not

¶27

tallying. Hence, the survey cannot be conducted.

¶28

4.In view of the orders already passed on the petitioner's application, no positive direction can be issued to the writ petitioner in this writ petition, which is only for a Mandamus. However, liberty is given to the writ petitioner to make appropriate application before the concerned authority, after complying with the defects that have been pointed out by the authorities while rejecting the petitioner's application dated 02.12.2022. In the event of survey being conducted based on the fresh application, the same shall be conducted in the presence of the second respondent. The survey shall be conducted after giving advance notice to the second respondent as well as the other interested parties.

¶29

5.With the aforesaid directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed

¶30

of. No costs.

¶31

Index : Yes / No 17.03.2025 NCC : Yes / No mm

¶32

3/5

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.(MD)No.1431 of 2024