Madras High Court
Mir Athar Ali vs The District Collector on 5 July, 2023
W.P.No.19730 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.19730 of 2023
Mir Athar Ali ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Krishnagiri District,
Krishnagiri.
2.The Thasildar,
O/o.Thasildhar Office,
Bargur Taluk,
Krishnagiri District.
3.The Land Surveyor,
Bargur Taluk,
Krishnagiri District.
4.The Village Administrative Officer,
13, Sendrapalli Village,
Bargur Taluk,
Krishnagiri District.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Kandhikuppam Police Station,
Krishnagiri District. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19730 of 2023
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 2 and 3 to survey,
demarcate the petitioner land to fix boundaries, comprised in Survey
No.392/3 in 13, Sendarapalli Village, Bargur Taluk, Krishnagiri District, to
an extent of 7 acre 24 cents with the aid and protection of 5th respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Padmanabhan
For Respondent : Mr.C.Jayaprakash,
Government Advocate
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed for directing the respondents 2 and 3
to survey, demarcate the petitioner land to fix boundaries, comprised in
Survey No.392/3 in 13, Sendarapalli Village, Bargur Taluk, Krishnagiri
District, to an extent of 7 acre 24 cents with the aid and protection of
5th respondent.
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 & etc.,
batch, and a judgment was delivered on 19.06.2023 and the relevant
paragraphs of the judgment are extracted hereunder:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19730 of 2023
“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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19730 of 2023
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19730 of 2023
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), this writ petition stands disposed of.
No costs.
05.07.2023
skr
Index : Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes
To
1.The District Collector,
Krishnagiri District,
Krishnagiri.
2.The Thasildar,
O/o.Thasildhar Office,
Bargur Taluk,
Krishnagiri District.
3.The Land Surveyor,
Bargur Taluk,
Krishnagiri District.
4.The Village Administrative Officer,
13, Sendrapalli Village,
Bargur Taluk,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19730 of 2023
Krishnagiri District.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Kandhikuppam Police Station,
Krishnagiri District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19730 of 2023
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
skr
W.P.No.19730 of 2023
05.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
