Disposed¶39

A.Leema Rose v. the Revenue Tahsildar

Madras HC17 Mar 2026WP/16966/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition (Article 226) mandamus land survey Revenue Tahsildar Tiruvallur Taluk; petitioner A.Leema Rose, house site 6115 sq.ft. / 14 cents, new S.No.459/10 (Natham S.No.99/1), Thirupanthiyur Village; objection and obstruction by adjoining owner N.Arokiya Mery (S.Nos.459/5-459/7); plot sold to Jayamary; directions to conduct survey, lay boundary stones with notice, police protection on obstruction, completion within twelve weeks; disposed of, no costs; single judge Krishnan Ramasamy, J.; decided 17-03-2026; WP No. 16966 of 2024.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions to the first respondent to conduct the survey of S.No.459/10 and lay boundary stones after due notice to the petitioner, the second respondent and Jayamary; jurisdictional police to give protection if obstructed; completion within twelve weeks. No costs.

A.Leema Rose Vs the Revenue Tahsildar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the first respondent (Revenue Tahsildar) to conduct the land survey of the petitioner's house site in S.No.459/10, Thirupanthiyur Village, by considering her application and representation dated 30.05.2024. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

Direction (i): The first respondent is to conduct a survey and lay boundary stones in respect of S.No.459/10, issuing due notice to the petitioner, the second respondent, and one Jayamary, owner of S.Nos.459/8 and 459/9.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

The Court found that no prejudice would be cast upon the second respondent by measuring the petitioner's property, since the petitioner had applied for survey and fixing of boundary stones in respect of S.No.459/10.

¶30

Key takeaways

As on date the second respondent is not the owner of the property comprised in S.Nos.459/8 and 459/10 (as printed; counsel had spoken of S.Nos.459/8 and 459/9), having been sold to one Jayamary.ratio¶30
Direction (ii): If anybody, including the second respondent, obstructs the survey, the first respondent shall approach the concerned jurisdictional police, who shall give protection to complete the survey and lay the boundary stones.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Krishnan Ramasamy, J.) disposed of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in which A.Leema Rose sought a mandamus directing the Revenue Tahsildar (land Survey), Tiruvallur Taluk, to survey her house site of 6115 sq.ft. (14 cents) in new S.No.459/10 (Natham S.No.99/1), Thirupanthiyur Village, pursuant to her application and representation dated 30.05.2024. The survey attempt of 28.06.2024 had failed due to obstruction by the second respondent, N.Arokiya Mery, adjoining owner claiming encroachment. The Court held that measuring the petitioner's property casts no prejudice on the second respondent, who is no longer owner of the adjoining plots (sold to one Jayamary), and directed the Tahsildar to conduct the survey and lay boundary stones after due notice to the petitioner, the second respondent and Jayamary; on any obstruction the Tahsildar is to seek jurisdictional police protection; the exercise to be completed within twelve weeks. No costs.

¶1

WP No. 16966 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 17-03-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY WP No. 16966 of 2024

A.Leema Rose

..Petitioner(s)

The Revenue Tahsildar (land Survey), Tiruvallur Taluk, Tiruvallur District.

¶10

2. N.Arokiya Mery

¶11

..Respondent(s)

¶12

Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to conduct land survey of petitioner’s house site measuring 6115 sq.ft., (14 cents) bearing new S.No.459/10 (Natham S.No.99/1) Thirupanthiyur Village, Thiruvallur Taluk and district by considering petitioner’s application dated 13.03.2024 and representation dated 30.05.2024.

¶13

For Petitioner(s): Mr.N.Manokaran For Respondent(s): Mr.T.K.Saravanan, AGP for R1 M/s.S.Revathy for R2

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This writ petition is filed to direct the 1st respondent to conduct land

¶16

survey of petitioner’s house site measuring 6115 sq.ft., (14 cents) bearing new S.No.459/10 (Natham S.No.99/1) Thirupanthiyur Village, Thiruvallur Taluk

¶17

Page1 of 6

¶18

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

¶19

WP No. 16966 of 2024

¶20

and district by considering petitioner’s application dated 13.03.2024 and representation dated 30.05.2024.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner of the house site measuring an extent of 6155 sq.ft, comprised in new S.F.No.459/10 (Natham S.No.99/1), Thirupanthiyur Village, Thiruvallur Taluk and District by virtue of sale deed dated 26.06.2007 executed by one Mr.Malappadi Abraham Naidu. Since the second respondent has objected to clear the bushes in the said land, as if there is some dispute over the boundary line. In order to get patta and to fix boundary lines, the petitioner has submitted an application date 13.03.2004 along with requisite fee and documents. When the officials came to survey the subject property, the second respondent made an objection and created a law and order problem. Therefore, the petitioner has made a representation dated 30.05.2024, before the first respondent to conduct a survey by considering her application dated 13.03.2004. However, no order was passed, as on date. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

¶22

Learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent would submit that, based on the petitioner’s application, the survey was conducted on 28.06.2024, however, the same was not completed due to the obstruction created by the second respondent.

¶23

__________ Page2 of 6

¶24

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

¶25

WP No. 16966 of 2024

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit

¶27

that the second respondent is the owner of the property in S.Nos.459/5, 459/6 and 459/7 and previously, she was the owner of the property comprised in S.Nos.459/8 and 459/9, which was sold to one Jayamary. Now, under the pretext of owner, the petitioner is trying to encroach the S.Nos.459/8 and 459/9. Hence, she made an objection to survey the properties.

¶28

In reply to the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is only concerned about the property in S.No.459/10.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶30

In the case on hand, the petitioner made an application dated 13.03.2004 to survey the land and fix the boundary stones in regard to S.No.459/10 to an extent of 6115 sq.ft., Such being the case, I do not find any prejudice would be cast upon the second respondent for measuring the petitioner’s property. Further, as on date, the second respondent is not the owner of the property comprised in S.Nos.459/8 and 459/10 and the same was sold to one Jayamary.

¶31

Page3 of 6

¶32

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

¶33

WP No. 16966 of 2024

¶34

In view of the above, this Court issues the following directions:

¶35

(i) The first respondent is directed to conduct a survey and lay the

¶36

boundary stones in respect of S.No.459/10, by issuing due notice to the petitioner as well as the second respondent and one Jayamary, who is the owner of the property comprised in S.Nos.459/8 and 459/9.

¶37

(ii) In the event there is any obstruction on the part of anybody or by second respondent, the first respondent is directed to approach the concerned jurisdictional police, who in turn is directed to give protection to complete the survey and lay the boundary stones.

¶38

(iii) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶39

With the aforesaid observation and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶40

17-03-2026

¶41

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶42

¶43

__________ Page4 of 6

¶44