Madras High Court
S.Sarathkumar vs The Tahsildar on 10 June, 2021
W.P.No.12524 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.06.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM
W.P. No. 12524 of 2021
S.Sarathkumar ..Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Tahsildar,
Ayanavaram Taluk,
Ayanavaram,
Chennai-600 102.
2. Land Surveyor-I,
Ayanavaram Taluk,
Ayanavaram,
Chennai-600 023.
3. G.Masilamani,
4. S.Nagammal
W/o.K.Subramani
5. S.Dhanalakshmi
D/o.K.Subramani
.. Respondents
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.12524 of 2021
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st and 2nd
respondents to consider the representation dated 31.01.2020 and pass orders
on the enquiry conducted on 17.03.2020 and mark the boundaries and fix
the boundary stones for my property viz., all the piece and parcel of the
property bearing New No.22, Old No.14/2, Duraisamy Street, Ayanavaram,
Chennai-600 023 comprised in Town Survey No.126/4 of Ayanavaram
village, Chennai District.
For Petitioner : Mr. Bennington
For Respondents : Mr.S.John J.Raja Singh
Government Advocate for R1 & R2
ORDER
The Case has been heard through video conferencing
The relief sought for in this writ petition on hand is directed to
first and second respondents to consider the representation submitted by the
writ petitioner on 31.01.2020 and pass orders by conducting an enquiry on
17.03.2020 and for the property belongs to the petitioner which as per new
No.22, Old No.14/2, Duraisamy Street, Ayanavaram, Chennai-600 023
comprised in Town Survey No.126/4 of Ayanavaram village, Chennai
District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.12524 of 2021
2. The relief as such sought for in the writ petition is absurd.
An attempt made to convert the civil dispute by way of a writ petition can
never be encouraged by the High Court. Even to get the relief of disposal of
representation by the competent authority, the petitioner has to establish his
right. In respect of immovable properties, if any right regarding title or
ownership is to be established, then the parties have to approach the
competent Civil Court of law. High Court cannot settle the disputed issues
between the parties by examining documents and evidences under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
3. Mere submission of representation to the public authority
cannot constitute a cause for the writ petitioner to move a writ petition in
order to resolve a civil dispute, which is otherwise to be resolved by
approaching the competent Civil Court.
4. The writ petitioner has raised certain allegations against the
3rd respondent and he lodged a police complaint also. Survey of boundaries
in respect of immovable property is a civil dispute and in this regard, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.12524 of 2021
petitioner has to approach the competent Civil Court by impleading all
necessary parties and mere representation cannot be a solution for resolving
such civil disputes. High Court cannot issue a direction to dispose of the
representation in a routine manner. Even for issuing certain directions
certain principles are to be followed. This Court has elaborately considered
the issue and delivered a judgment on 08.07.2019 in W.P.(MD) No.12782
of 2015 and the following requirements are considered for issuing a writ of
mandamus to direct the authorities to consider the representation and the
relevant para is extracted hereunder:
“13. Thus, for entertaining a writ of mandamus to
consider the appeal / representation, the following
requirements are to be adhered to:
(i)The person filing a writ petition should have
approached the authority concerned by preferring appeal /
representation setting out all the facts and details along with
the cause of action arose for filing such appeal /
representation.
(ii)Such an appeal / representation must be duly
acknowledged by the authority concerned.
(iii)The person, who files a writ petition, should
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.12524 of 2021
establish that he has established the legal rights for the
purpose of redressing his grievances before the competent
authority. In other words, it is a precondition that the person,
who files a writ petition, should establish the legal rights for
the purpose of approaching the competent authority as well as
the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(iv)Such an appeal / representation must have been
preferred within the time limit prescribed in the Service Rules
or at least within a reasonable period.
(v)The normal period of limitation prescribed in the
Service Rules of various Departments of the State and Union is
that 60 days or 90 days from the date of arising of cause of
action. If there is no order affecting the rights of a person,
then such an appeal / representation must be filed at least
within a period of six months from the date of arising of cause
of action. Thus, any appeal or representation must be
submitted to the competent authority within a period of six
months from the date of arising of cause of action.
(vi)On receipt of such an appeal / representation from
the aggrieved person, the competent authority is bound to
consider the same and pass orders within a period of six
months from the date of receipt of the representation/ appeal.
(vii)In the event of not passing any orders within a period
of six months, then alone, a writ of mandamus should be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.12524 of 2021
entertained for the purpose of issuing a direction to the
authority concerned to consider the representation / appeal
and pass orders.
(viii)Even such procedures are contemplated in certain
Special Acts, namely, Administrative Tribunal Act etc., and
several other Acts prescribe time limit for the purpose of
preferring appeal and even the Service Rules of various
Departments of the State or Union also prescribe time limit for
preferring appeal / representation. All such appeals /
representations are to be filed within a time limit prescribed
and in the event of filing any such appeal / representation
beyond the period of limitation, then, such an appeal /
representation shall be entertained by the competent authority
only on filing a petition by the aggrieved person to condone
the delay and the delay condonation petition is to be decided
by the competent authority by considering the reasons adduced
and by taking a decision on merits and in accordance with
law.”
5. In view of the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is at
liberty to approach the competent forum for the purpose of redressal of his
grievances. By submitting a mere representation, the civil dispute between
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.12524 of 2021
the parties cannot be resolved in a writ petition under Article 226 of
Constitution of India. Thus, the writ petition is devoid of merits and stands
dismissed. No costs.
10.06.2021
Index: Yes/ No
rpl/vri/kak
To
1. The Tahsildar,
Ayanavaram Taluk,
Ayanavaram,
Chennai-600 102.
2. Land Surveyor-I,
Ayanavaram Taluk,
Ayanavaram,
Chennai-600 023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.12524 of 2021
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM,J.
rpl/vri
W.P. No. 12524 of 2021
10.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
