Mani. Kr Vs Kandasamy M — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Mani. Kr Vs Kandasamy M — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Review application allowed with no costs; order dated 24.02.2023 in WP(MD)No.24382 of 2022 set aside; writ petition to be heard afresh with the review applicant impleaded; writ petitioner debarred from taking advantage of the earlier survey results; connected miscellaneous petitions WMP(MD)Nos.4774 & 7214 of 2025 closed; Registry directed to list the writ petition before the Hon'ble Judge holding the roster.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 24.02.2023 passed in WP(MD)No.24382 of 2022 suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review, having been passed to the prejudice of the review applicant (a necessary party) without service of notice or hearing, in violation of the principles of natural justice. +1 more

Court's answer

The review applicant K.R.Mani was a necessary party to the writ proceedings; an order to his prejudice could not have been passed without hearing him, and the notice reportedly issued to him was admittedly never served.

Ratio / Principle

No order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice can be allowed to stand.

Key takeaways

The order dated 24.02.2023 passed by this Court in WP(MD)No.24382 of 2022 suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record.ratio¶51
The writ petitioner knew of the rival parties and had consciously and deliberately not impleaded them as respondents; the writ petition suffers from the vice of non-joinder of necessary parties.ratio¶51
The order dated 24.02.2023 in WP(MD)No.24382 of 2022 is set aside and the matter is to be heard afresh.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review Application (Rev.Aplcw(MD)No.47 of 2024) filed under Order 41 Rule 1 r/w. 114 of CPC — Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, G.R. Swaminathan, J. (reserved 11.07.2025; pronounced 20.01.2026) — reviewing the order dated 24.02.2023 in WP(MD)No.24382 of 2022, whereby the Court had directed the survey authorities to survey the petition-mentioned survey numbers after notice and enquiry, with safeguards against dispossession. Grievance of the review applicant (K.R.Mani, third party): in the guise of the survey conducted on 12.01.2024 and 13.01.2024, his superstructure on one of the survey numbers was demolished; at the hearing of 02.04.2025 the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar confirmed the structure shown in his photograph did exist, and the site now stands fenced. Held: the review applicant was a necessary party; the notice admittedly was never served on him; an order passed behind his back violates the principles of natural justice and cannot stand; the writ petitioner knowingly and deliberately failed to implead the rival parties, vitiating the writ petition by non-joinder of necessary parties; the order suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. Order dated 24.02.2023 set aside; writ petition to be heard afresh; the writ petitioner cannot take advantage of the survey results and is obliged to implead the review applicant. Review allowed, no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed; writ petition to be listed before the roster Judge.

Rev aplcw(md) No.47 of 2024

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Reserved on : 11.07.2025

Pronounced on : 20.01.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

Rev.Aplcw(MD)No.47 of 2024 and

WMP(MD)Nos.4774 & 7214 of 2025

1.K.R.Mani

... Petitioner/3^rd Party

Vs.

1.M.Kandhasamy

...1^st respondent/petitioner

2.The District Revenue Officer,

Trichy, Trichirappalli District.

3.The Tahsildar, Trichy West, Cantonment, Trichirappalli District.

4.The Assistant Director of Land Surveyor Section,

Tiruchirappalli District.

5.The Land Surveyor, Ponmalai Zone, Tiruchirappalli District.

6.The Commissioner, Tiruchirappalli Corporation, Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli District.

1/7

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

Rev aplcw(md) No.47 of 2024

7.The Principal Town Surveyor, Tiruchirappalli Corporation, Ponmalai Kottam, Near TVS Tollgate, Tiruchirappalli District.

... Respondents

(Respondents 6 & 7 were impleaded vide order dated 09.11.2022)

Prayer : Review Application filed under Order 41 Rule 1 r/w. 114 of CPC, to review the order passed in WP(MD)No.24382 of 2022 dated 24.02.2023.

For Petitioners : Mr.I.Irulappan

For Respondents : Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar for R1

Mr.A.Kannan, Additional Government Pleader for R2 to R7

ORDER

The applicant herein seeks review of the order dated 24.02.2023 made

in WP(MD)No.24382 of 2022 filed by the first respondent herein. M.Kandhasamy filed the said writ petition seeking survey of the properties comprised in the petition mentioned survey numbers. The writ petition was disposed of by me by issuing the following directions :

“(I) The survey authority will issue notice to the writ petitioner as well as the adjacent land owners and also to the interested persons, if any.

2/7

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

Rev aplcw(md) No.47 of 2024

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

(III) If according to the jurisdictional authority, the objections are without any basis, the same shall be overruled and the objectors shall be informed by a speaking order. 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. It is open to the parties to serve memo on instructions to the surveyor at the time of conducting the survey. The same will be borne in mind. While it cannot be binding on the surveyor, the same will be taken note of.

(IV) If the jurisdictional authority finds objections to be having substance, then, he shall call upon the applicant to move the jurisdictional civil Court for agitating his rights.

(V) If required, the survey authority is empowered to seek aid of the jurisdictional police and the jurisdictional police are mandated to grant police protection.

(VI) 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. No person shall put up fencing at the time of survey by using police aid. The Survey Authority will pass order within a period of six weeks after service of notice on the interested persons.

3/7

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

Rev aplcw(md) No.47 of 2024

(VII) A copy of the survey report will be served on the parties also.”

2.The grievance of the review applicant is that in the guise of conducting survey, the superstructure put up by him in one of the petition mentioned survey numbers was demolished. The matter was heard at length. During one such hearing on 02.04.2025, Thiru.V.Yogarajan, Zonal Deputy Tahsildar who was present when the survey was conducted, confirmed that the structure shown in the photograph produced by the review applicant did exist. Survey was conducted on 12.01.2024 and 13.01.2024. The area of the site in which the structure was located had been fenced and the structure is not available. I am more than satisfied that the review applicant was a necessary party to the writ proceedings and an order to his prejudice could not have been passed without hearing him. The authorities had apparently issued notice to the review applicant but admittedly it was never served on him. During the pendency of the review application, the writ petitioner has also sold the property. The writ petitioner obviously had taken advantage of the order passed by me behind the back of the review applicant who has a substantial stake in the matter. No order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice can be allowed to stand.

4/7

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

Rev aplcw(md) No.47 of 2024

3.I am satisfied that the order passed by me suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. The writ petitioner obviously knew that there are rival parties. He had consciously and deliberately not impleaded them as respondents in the writ petition. The writ petition suffers from the vice of non-joinder of necessary parties. The order dated 24.02.2023 in WP(MD)No.24382 of 2022 is set aside. It is only just and proper that the matter is heard afresh. It is needless to mention that the writ petitioner cannot take advantage of the results of the survey exercise undertaken pursuant to the direction given by me. The matter has to be necessarily heard afresh. The writ petitioner is obliged to implead the review applicant.

4.This review application is allowed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous

petitions are closed. Registry is directed to list the writ petition before the Hon'ble Judge holding the roster.

20.01.2026

SKM

To

1.The District Revenue Officer, Trichy, Trichirappalli District.

2.The Tahsildar, Trichy West, Cantonment, Trichirappalli District.

5/7

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

Rev aplcw(md) No.47 of 2024

3.The Assistant Director of Land Surveyor Section, Tiruchirappalli District.

4.The Land Surveyor, Ponmalai Zone, Tiruchirappalli District.

5.The Commissioner, Tiruchirappalli Corporation, Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli District.

6.The Principal Town Surveyor, Tiruchirappalli Corporation, Ponmalai Kottam, Near TVS Tollgate, Tiruchirappalli District.

6/7

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

Rev aplcw(md) No.47 of 2024

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

SKM

Rev.Aplcw(MD)No.47 of 2024 and WMP(MD)Nos.4774 & 7214 of 2025

20.01.2026

7/7

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