Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Govindaraj Vs D.Ganesan — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Home
Madras HC
2026
Govindaraj Vs D.GanesanGovindaraj v. D.Ganesan

Dismissed¶60

Govindaraj v. D.Ganesan

Madras HC21 Jul 2026WA/2054/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court Division Bench (Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and G. Arul Murugan, J.), W.A.No.2054 of 2026, decided 21.07.2026. Writ appeal under Clause 15 Letters Patent against Single Judge order in W.P.No.4120 of 2026 dated 06.02.2026 directing Tahsildar, Salem West and Surveyor, Old Suramangalam to survey and demarcate first respondent's property on application dated 12.01.2026, after notice to respondents 4 to 6 and other interested parties, within 12 weeks, with police assistance if needed. Appellants' contention of denial of notice/hearing rejected; Single Judge's directions held to protect appellants' interests; no survey yet conducted; writ appeal dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

The learned Single Judge, in fact, protected the interest of the appellants by issuing the directions requiring notice, consideration of objections, and hearing before survey and demarcation.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Single Judge erred in disposing of the writ petition and issuing directions for survey and demarcation without prior notice and hearing to the appellants, private parties arrayed as respondents in the writ petition.

Court's answer

The learned Single Judge, in fact, protected the interest of the appellants by issuing the directions requiring notice, consideration of objections, and hearing before survey and demarcation.

Ratio / Principle

There is no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge; accordingly the writ appeal was liable to be dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.4120 of 2026 dated 06.02.2026. The first respondent had sought a direction to the Tahsildar, Salem West and the Surveyor, Old Suramangalam to survey and demarcate property claimed by him, based on his application dated 12.01.2026. The Single Judge, noting the application was not considered and without notice to the appellants, disposed of the writ petition with directions: (a) notice to respondents 4 to 6 and any other party deemed fit before survey; (b) survey and demarcation on merits and in accordance with law within 12 weeks after considering objections; and (c) police assistance if required. The appellants, private parties, contended they ought to have been heard before such directions were issued. HELD: the learned Single Judge in fact protected the interest of the appellants by issuing the aforesaid directions, and there is no error in the order. State counsel stated that as of now no survey had been conducted. Writ appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.

A

W.A.No.2054 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 21.07.2026

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

W.A.No.2054 of 2026

1.Govindaraj S/o.Vellaiyan, 46, Nagaramalai Adivaram, Salem District-636 016.

2.Saravanan

S/o.Govindaraj, 46, Nagaramalai Adivaram, Salem District-636 016.

3.Selvam

S/o.Vellaiyan, 46, Nagaramalai Adivaram, Salem District-636016.

Appellants

Vs

1.D.Ganesan

S/o.Dhanasekaran, 101/17 Block A, 305, Golden Valley Apartment, Nagaramalai Adivaram, Salem-636 016

_______________ Page 1 of 7_

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

W.A.No.2054 of 2026

2.The Thasildar Office of Thasildar, Salem West Salem.

3.The Surveyor Old Suramangalam, Salem-5.

4.The Inspector of Police Alagapuram Police Station, Salem-16.

Respondents

PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.4120 of 2026, dated 06.02.2026.

For Appellants: Mr.P.Vijendran

For Respondents: Mr.R.Nalliyappan for R1

Mr.K.Kumaran Government Pleader for R2 and R3

Mr.M.Dinesh Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for R4

_______________ Page 2 of 7_

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

W.A.No.2054 of 2026

JUDGMENT (Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

This writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent assails the order of the learned Single Judge dated 6.2.2026 passed in W.P.No.4120 of 2026, whereby the writ petition has been disposed of with certain directions.

The first respondent herein had filed the writ petition seeking a direction to the Tahsildar, Salem West and the Surveyor of Old Suramangalam to survey and demarcate the property, which according to the first respondent is owned by him, based on the application dated 12.01.2026 within a time frame.

The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition, considering the fact that the application submitted by the first respondent dated 12.1.2026 has not been considered, without issuing notice to the appellants, disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:

“4. ...

_______________ Page 3 of 7_

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

W.A.No.2054 of 2026

(a) Before surveying the lands in question, the respondents

1 and 2 are directed to issue notice to the respondents 4 to

6 and also to any other party, whom the respondents 1 and

2 deem it fit to put on notice.

(b) After receiving objections if any and after considering the same, the respondents 1 and 2 shall conduct survey and demarcate the boundaries of the property, more fully described in the prayer to this writ petition, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(c) If the need arises for police assistance and on a request made by the respondents 1 and 2, the third respondent

shall render police assistance for the effective implementation of this order.”

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that if the

private parties, like the appellants, are added as respondents in the writ petition, they ought to have been given notice and upon hearing them only the learned Single Judge could pass an order. He further submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to consider that the first

Page 4 of 7

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

W.A.No.2054 of 2026

respondent without knowing the real fact has filed the writ petition, that too, without adding the original purchaser of the subject-property. In fact, the first respondent has pleaded general statement in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and based on the said general statement, the writ court ought not to have issued directions.

On a perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge, we find

that the learned Single Judge observed that “ since no adverse order is being passed against the respondents 4 to 6, notice to respondents 4 to 6 is dispensed with by this Court ”. The learned Single Judge has further observed that “ no prejudice will be caused to respondents 1 and 2 if the said authorities are directed to survey and demarcate the boundaries of the petitioner’s property, morefully described in the prayer to this writ petition, after hearing the objections if any from the respondents 4 to 6 as well as any other party whom the respondents 1 and 2 deem it fit ”.

At this juncture, learned State counsel submitted that as of now no survey has been conducted.

We are of the view that the learned Single Judge, in fact, has _______________ Page 5 of 7_

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

W.A.No.2054 of 2026

protected the interest of the appellants by issuing the aforesaid directions. Therefore, there is no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)

21.07.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No bbr

To:

1.The Thasildar Office of Thasildar, Salem West Salem.

2.The Surveyor Old Suramangalam, Salem-5.

3.The Inspector of Police Alagapuram Police Station, Salem-16.

Page 6 of 7

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

W.A.No.2054 of 2026

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.

bbr

W.A.No.2054 of 2026

21.07.2026

_______________ Page 7 of 7_

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

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the learned Single Judge erred in disposing of the writ petition and issuing directions for survey and demarcation without prior notice and hearing to the appellants, private parties arrayed as respondents in the writ petition.¶48
The court held
The learned Single Judge, in fact, protected the interest of the appellants by issuing the directions requiring notice, consideration of objections, and hearing before survey and demarcation.ratio¶59

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Letters PatentClause 15¶33

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.4120 of 2026 dated 06.02.2026, disposing of the writ petition with certain directions for survey and demarcation of the first respondent's property.¶24
High Court of Judicature at Madras (learned Single Judge) · 06.02.2026
Prior proceeding
First respondent filed W.P.No.4120 of 2026 seeking a direction to the Tahsildar, Salem West and the Surveyor, Old Suramangalam to survey and demarcate the property claimed by him, based on his application dated 12.01.2026.¶34
Prior proceeding
The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition on the ground that the first respondent's application dated 12.1.2026 had not been considered, without issuing notice to the appellants.¶35
Prior proceeding
The Single Judge observed that no adverse order was being passed against respondents 4 to 6, notice to them was dispensed with, and no prejudice would be caused since survey would follow hearing of objections from respondents 4 to 6 and any other party.¶54
Prior proceeding
Directions issued by the Single Judge included: notice to respondents 4 to 6 and other fit parties before survey; survey and demarcation on merits and in accordance with law within 12 weeks after considering objections; and police assistance by the third respondent if required.¶44
Prior proceeding
Before the Division Bench, learned State counsel submitted that as of now no survey has been conducted pursuant to the Single Judge's order.¶55

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
Govindaraj S/o.Vellaiyan¶8
Mr.P.Vijendran
appellant
Saravanan S/o.Govindaraj¶9
Mr.P.Vijendran
appellant
Selvam S/o.Vellaiyan¶11
Mr.P.Vijendran
respondent
D.Ganesan S/o.Dhanasekaran¶15
Mr.R.Nalliyappan
respondent
The Thasildar Office of Thasildar, Salem West Salem¶20
Mr.K.Kumaran
respondent
The Surveyor Old Suramangalam, Salem-5¶21
Mr.K.Kumaran
respondent
The Inspector of Police Alagapuram Police Station, Salem-16¶22
Mr.M.Dinesh

Coram

AI extract

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, Chief Justiceauthor¶5
G. Arul Muruganmember¶6

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 21 Jul 2026 · July
Registered: 10 Jul 2026
Case no.: WA/2054/2026
CNR: HCMA010714962026
Bench: G.arul Murugan
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: W.A.

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from G.arul Murugan

Ameen R.S Vs PNB Housing Finance Ltd.
20 Jul 2026
Mrs. Susan John Vs the Secretary to Government
20 Jul 2026
Tamilnadu Samuga Aarvalargal Paadhugappur Matrum Sattangal Vizhipunarvu Sangam, Vs The Principal Secretary to Government
20 Jul 2026
M/S.Sri Shivam Enterprises Vs Union Bank of India
21 Jul 2026
The State of TamilNadu Vs R.Prabakaran
21 Jul 2026
M/s. Sriram Engineering company Vs the RBI Ombudsman
21 Jul 2026

Cite this judgement

Govindaraj v. D.Ganesan, WA/2054/2026 (MAD), decided on 21 July 2026.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Letters PatentClause 15

View all statutes

Procedural history6

Order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.4120 of 2026 dated 06.02.2026, disposing of the writ petition with certain directions for survey and demarcation of the first respondent's property.High Court of Judicature at Madras (learned Single Judge) · 06.02.2026
First respondent filed W.P.No.4120 of 2026 seeking a direction to the Tahsildar, Salem West and the Surveyor, Old Suramangalam to survey and demarcate the property claimed by him, based on his application dated 12.01.2026.
The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition on the ground that the first respondent's application dated 12.1.2026 had not been considered, without issuing notice to the appellants.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, Chief Justice and G. Arul Murugan

Parties & counsel