Madras High Court
M.K.Ramasamy vs The District Collector on 10 August, 2023
W.P.No.23669 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.23669 of 2023
M.K.Ramasamy ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
District Collectorate,
Palayapalayam,
Erode- 638 011.
2.The Tahsildar,
Erode Taluk,
Erode – 638 011.
3.The Secretary to Government,
Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Fort St. George, Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
4.Revenue Divisional Officer,
Erode Taluk,
Erode – 638 001. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the fourth respondent to dispose
of the Statutory Appeal dated 31.12.2021 pending before him, preferred by
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23669 of 2023
the petitioner against the order dated 24.11.2021, passed by the 2nd
respondent in Na.Ka. 5057/2021/A2, with a time frame that may be fixed by
this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mahamani
For Respondents : Mr.D.Ravichander,
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the fourth
respondent to dispose of the Statutory Appeal dated 31.12.2021 pending
before him, preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 24.11.2021,
passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka. 5057/2021/A2, within a time frame
that may be fixed by this Court.
2. The issues raised in the present writ petition were adjudicated by this
Court in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.37519 of 2016 [S.Sakkarai Vs.
The Tashildhar, Dharmapuri District] etc., and batch, and a judgment was
delivered on 19.06.2023 and the relevant paragraphs of the judgment are
extracted hereunder:
“36. Section 9 of the Code of Civil
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23669 of 2023
Procedure unambiguously contemplates that “The
Courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a
civil nature excepting suits of which their
cognizance is either expressly or impliedly
barred”.
37. Therefore, a special enactment has no
relevance with reference to a right of the parties to
approach the competent Civil Court of law to
resolve all nature of civil disputes including
boundary dispute, survey dispute, title dispute,
ownership or otherwise. Therefore, neither the
parties nor the authorities need to create an
impression that in the event of boundary dispute,
the parties have to approach the authorities at the
first instance. It is not required that the aggrieved
persons, in the event of boundary dispute has to
approach the authorities for fixing the boundary,
they are at liberty to approach the Civil Court of
law under Section 9 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, which is unambiguous in this regard.
38. Submitting an application for fixing
boundary is an option available to the aggrieved
persons. Once an application is filed, whether the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23669 of 2023
application is entertainable under the provisions
of the Act is to be determined by the authorities
and only if it is falling within the ambit of the Act,
then alone the survey or fixing of boundary is to
be undertaken. Even in this case, the authorities
are bound to relegate the parties to the competent
Civil Court of law under Section 14 of the Act.
39. It is contended by the petitioner that the
authorities are making certain findings regarding
the title, ownership in their order, while rejecting
the applications. Such findings made by the
authorities either in the patta proceedings or in
the proceedings under the Survey and Boundaries
Act are restricted and to be understood only for
the purpose of arriving a conclusion under the
provisions of the Act and the said patta
proceedings or the proceedings under the Survey
and Boundaries Act would not confer any title or
be taken as a conclusive decision, more
specifically under Section 35 of the Evidence Act.
40. Accordingly, the respondents are
directed to consider the representations /
applications submitted by the petitioners in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23669 of 2023
order of seniority and by following the procedures
as contemplated under the Governmental orders
and in consonance with the provisions of the
Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 and pass
appropriate orders on merits and in accordance
with law. Wherever the applications are already
disposed of and appeals provided under the Act
has been filed, then such appeals are to be
decided on merits and in consonance with the
provisions of the Survey and Boundaries Act.”
3. In view of the fact that the case of the petitioner is also similar to that
of the cases (cited supra), the case of the petitioner is also to be considered on
the same line. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.
10.08.2023
nl
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes /No
Speaking order /Non-speaking order
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23669 of 2023
1.The District Collector,
District Collectorate,
Palayapalayam,
Erode- 638 011.
2.The Tahsildar,
Erode Taluk,
Erode – 638 011.
3.The Secretary to Government,
Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Fort St. George, Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Erode Taluk,
Erode – 638 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23669 of 2023
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
nl
W.P.No.23669 of 2023
10.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
