Madras High Court
Hanumantha Rao vs The Chief Secretary on 11 August, 2023
W.P.No.23707 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.23707 of 2023
Hanumantha Rao ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Chief Secretary,
The Government Of Tamilnadu,
St. George Fort, Chennai-09.
2. The Commissioner,
Survey And Settlement Department,
Survey House, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
3. The District Collector,
Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Thiruvallur Division, Thiruvallur.
5. The Tahsildar,
Uthukottai Taluk,
Tiruvallur District. ... Respondents
Prayer :- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the 5th respondent to
take necessary steps to dispose petitioner's representation dated
26.05.2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.P.No.23707 of 2023
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Hanumantha Rao
For Respondents : Mr.G.Krishna Raja
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The relief sought for in the writ petition is to direct the 5th
respondent to take necessary steps to dispose petitioner's representation
dated 26.05.2023.
2.The issues raised in the present writ petition were adjudicated by
this Court in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.37519 of 2016 & etc.,
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23707 of 2023
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23707 of 2023
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 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.
(sha) 11.08.2023
Index : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23707 of 2023
Speaking Order
Neutral Citation : Yes
To
1. The Chief Secretary,
The Government Of Tamilnadu,
St. George Fort, Chennai-09.
2. The Commissioner,
Survey And Settlement Department,
Survey House, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
3. The District Collector,
Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Thiruvallur Division, Thiruvallur.
5. The Tahsildar,
Uthukottai Taluk,
Tiruvallur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23707 of 2023
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM. J.,
(sha)
W.P.No.23707 of 2023
11.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
