Murugan.K Vs The Tahsildar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

Murugan.K Vs The Tahsildar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with directions to the first respondent/Tahsildar to conduct a survey and demarcate respondents 2 and 3's 4800 sq.ft. in S.No.1243/1A2, the remaining property going to the petitioner; liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court if the property's identity is disputed during survey; exercise to be concluded within 8 weeks; no costs; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order of the Tahsildar in O.Mu.No. 3072/2019/Aa1 dated 02.12.2019, which diverted the petitioner's representation seeking implementation of the order dated 17.09.2018 into an appellate route before the Revenue Division Officer, is liable to be quashed. +1 more

Court's answer

Considering that the petitioner does not dispute the entitlement of respondents 2 and 3 over the 4800 sq.ft. and the issue is confined to demarcation of their respective properties, the Court disposed of the writ petition by issuing survey and demarcation directions rather than adjudicating the challenge to the impugned order.

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioner admits he has no dispute over the 4800 sq.ft. purchased by respondents 2 and 3 in S.No.1243/1A2 and restricts his claim to the remaining property in S.No.1243/1A1, the dispute being one of demarcation, it is resolvable by a survey demarcating the boundaries.

Key takeaways

The first respondent/Tahsildar is directed to conduct a survey and demarcate the property of respondents 2 and 3 measuring 4800 sq.ft. comprised in S.No.1243/1A2.ratio¶45
Upon demarcation of respondents 2 and 3's property, whatever remains shall be the property to which the petitioner is entitled.ratio¶46
If any dispute arises as to the identification of the property itself when the survey is conducted, it shall be open to the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court, considering that he claims title under a vendor who purchased subsequent to the vendor of respondents 2 and 3.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (W.P.(MD)No.22855 of 2023, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, P.B. Balaji, J., decided 13.03.2025): The petitioner, purchaser of the subject property by registered sale deed dated 26.12.2000 (originally alienated by Andichamy to R.Chellachamy by sale deed dated 20.12.1991), challenged the Tahsildar's impugned order O.Mu.No. 3072/2019/Aa1 dated 02.12.2019, by which his representation for implementation of the Tahsildar's earlier order dated 17.09.2018 (mutating his patta in S.No.1243/1A, 18 ares, after removing the names of respondents 2 and 3 and issuing a separate patta) was diverted to an appeal before the Revenue Division Officer, Periyakulam. The petitioner did not dispute respondents 2 and 3's entitlement to 4800 sq.ft. in S.No.1243/1A2 (acquired under sale/settlement deed dated 12.06.2014 tracing to sale deed dated 18.03.1994) and restricted his claim to S.No.1243/1A1 comprising 13 ares. Held: where the entitlement of respondents 2 and 3 is undisputed and the issue is only demarcation of respective properties, the matter is resolved by survey; the writ petition was disposed of directing (i) the first respondent to survey and demarcate respondents 2 and 3's 4800 sq.ft. in S.No.1243/1A2; (ii) the remaining property to belong to the petitioner; (iii) liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court if the property's identification is disputed during survey, given his vendor purchased subsequent to the vendor of respondents 2 and 3 (1994); (iv) conclusion of the exercise within 8 weeks; and (v) cooperation by the parties, with the first respondent barred from postponing or refusing the survey for want of boundary stones, the survey to proceed on registered documents. No costs; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.