Madras High Court
Kannappan vs The Tahsildar on 9 August, 2023
W.P.No.23338 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.23338 of 2023
Kannappan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Tahsildar,
Maduranthagam Taluk,
Chengalpattu District.
2.The Surveyor,
Maduranthagam,
Chengalpattu Distrtict. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to survey the land
and lay the boundary stone to the petitioner's property in S.No.342/6,
admeasuring about 0133 Sq.mtrs and S.No.342/7, admeasuring about 0126
Sq.mtrs, Patta No.19, property situated at No.66, Thandalam Village,
Maduranthagam Taluk, Chengalpattu District as per challan dated
20.06.2023.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sathiya Prakash
For Respondents : Mr.C.Jayaprakash,
Government Advocate
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23338 of 2023
ORDER
The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the
respondents to survey the land and lay the boundary stone to the petitioner's
property comprised in S.No.342/6, admeasuring about 0133 Sq.mtrs and
S.No.342/7, admeasuring about 0126 Sq.mtrs, bearing Patta No.19, situated
at No.66, Thandalam Village, Maduranthagam Taluk, Chengalpattu District
as per challan dated 20.06.2023.
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
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”.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23338 of 2023
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23338 of 2023
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23338 of 2023
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.
09.08.2023
pal/nl
Index : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
Speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23338 of 2023
To
1.The Tahsildar,
Maduranthagam Taluk,
Chengalpattu District.
2.The Surveyor,
Maduranthagam,
Chengalpattu Distrtict.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23338 of 2023
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
pal/nl
W.P.No.23338 of 2023
09.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
