Disposed¶25

N.Deepa v. The Tahsildhar

Madras HC24 Mar 2026WP/10024/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition mandamus-style direction to Tahsildar for land survey and boundary demarcation; Grama Natham land, Mogappair, Ambattur Taluk, Chennai (Tiruvallur District); representation dated 17.11.2025 ignored; pre-survey notice to neighbouring owners mandatory; objections to be considered; 12-week compliance timeline; no costs; no opinion on merits; single-judge disposal order of Madras High Court.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions to the Tahsildhar to issue notice to neighbouring land owners and other parties, consider their objections, and survey and demarcate the boundaries of the petitioner's property on merits and in accordance with law within 12 weeks; no costs. ¶25

N.Deepa Vs The Tahsildhar — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent (Tahsildhar) can be directed to survey and demarcate the boundaries of the petitioner's property pursuant to her representation dated 17.11.2025.

¶21

Court's answer

No prejudice would be caused to the respondent in directing the surveying authority to survey and demarcate the boundaries of the petitioner's property after hearing objections of neighbouring land owners and other parties; on that basis the writ petition is disposed of.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

Before surveying, the respondent must issue notice to the neighbouring land owners and any other party it deems fit to put on notice.

¶29

Key takeaways

After receiving and considering objections, the respondent shall conduct the survey and demarcate the boundaries of the property on merits and in accordance with law within 12 weeks from receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶30
The Court expressly refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's representation.obiter¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Abdul Quddhose J.), WP No. 10024 of 2026, decided 24-03-2026 — N.Deepa v. The Tahsildhar, Ambattur, Tiruvallur District. Petitioner sought a direction to survey and fix the boundaries of her property (Plot No.6, Grama Natham survey No.425-part, Ward-H Block 0076 Town Survey No.78, Mogappair village, Chennai) after her representation dated 17.11.2025 went unconsidered. Court declined to comment on merits, held no prejudice would be caused, and disposed of the petition directing the Tahsildhar to (a) notify neighbouring land owners and other parties before survey, and (b) after considering objections, survey and demarcate the boundaries on merits and in accordance with law within 12 weeks of receipt of the order. No costs.

¶1

WP No. 10024 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 24-03-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

WP No. 10024 of 2026

N.Deepa

Petitioner(s)

The Tahsildhar

Ambattur, Tiruvallur District.

¶12

Respondent(s)

¶13

PRAYER

¶14

directing the respondent to survey and fix the boundaries of the property land and building bearing Plot No.6 measuring a total extent of 2520 sqft. of land (as per filed measurement 2200 sq.ft.,) and together with A.C.C. Sheet building extent of 200 sq.ft. with compound wall thereon situated at in Samson Saroja 2nd street, Golden George Nagar, (Murugan Sulokshana Street), Mogappair, Chennai and comprised in Grama Natham survey No.425-part as per Town survey land registered Ward-H Block 0076 Town Survey No.78 of Mogappair village, Ambattur Taluk, Chennai by considering petitioners representation dated 17.11.2025.

¶15

For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Ramachandran

¶16

For Respondent(s): Mr.R.P.Murugan Raja Govt.Advocate

¶17

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

¶18

WP No. 10024 of 2026

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This writ petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the respondent

¶21

to survey and demarcate the property, which according to the petitioner is owned by her, based on her representation dated 17.11.2025, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶22

2.The petitioner had submitted her representation dated 17.11.2025 for the aforesaid purpose. Since the same has not been considered till date, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

¶23

3.Mr.R.P.Murugan Raja, learned Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.

¶24

4.This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s representation.

¶25

5.No prejudice will be caused to the respondent if the said authority is 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 of the neighbouring land owners as well as any other party whom the respondent deems it fit to enquire. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:-

¶26

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

¶27

WP No. 10024 of 2026

¶28

24-03-2026

¶29

(a) Before surveying the lands in question, the respondent is directed to issue notice to the neighbouring land owners and also to any other party, whom the respondent deems it fit to put on notice.

¶30

(b) After receiving objections if any and after considering the same, the respondent shall conduct survey and demarcate the boundaries of the property morefully 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.

No costs.

vga

The Tahsildhar Ambattur, Tiruvallur District.

¶35

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

¶36

WP No. 10024 of 2026

¶37

ABDUL QUDDHOSE J.

¶38

vga

¶39

WP No. 10024 of 2026

¶40

24-03-2026

¶41

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

N.Deepa v. The Tahsildhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Deepa v. The Tahsildhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Janakiraman Chandrasekaran Vs the Sub Registrar

C.John Di Silva Vs the District Collector

Rajkamal Balasubramaniam Vs the District Registrar

Sivan Vs the Tahsildar

R.Kalalyanakumar Vs The Thasildar

Chinniah Vs the District Collector