Madras High Court
Anbalagan vs The Assistant Director on 21 July, 2023
W.P.No.21644 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.21644 of 2023
Anbalagan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Assistant Director
Survey And Land Records,
Salem, Salem District.
2.The Tahsildhar,
Taluk Office,
Petanaickenpalayam Taluk,
Chinnakalrayanmalai Vadakunadu,
Salem District. ...Respondents
Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents
herein to subdivide and demarcate the property situated in S.No.954/11,
measuring an extent of 23 cents land, Chinnakalrayan hills Vadakkunadu
Village, Pethanaickenpalayam Taluk, Salem District and consequently
issue separate patta for the petitioners Purchasers I.V.Rajendran,
II.S.Sadiq.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.P.No.21644 of 2023
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Jayan
For Respondents :
(for R1 & R.2) : Mr.E.Sunderam, Govt. Advocate
ORDER
The relief sought for in the writ petition is to direct the respondents
herein to subdivide and demarcate the property situated in S.No.954/11,
measuring an extent of 23 cents land, Chinnakalrayan hills Vadakkunadu
Village, Pethanaickenpalayam Taluk, Salem District and consequently
issue separate patta for the petitioners Purchasers I.V.Rajendran,
II.S.Sadiq.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21644 of 2023
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 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21644 of 2023
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
been filed, then such appeals are to be decided on merits and
in consonance with the provisions of the Survey and
Boundaries Act.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21644 of 2023
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) 21.07.2023
Index : Yes
Speaking Order
Neutral Citation : Yes
To
1.The Assistant Director
Survey And Land Records,
Salem Salem District.
2.The Tahsildhar,
Taluk Office,
Petanaickenpalayam Taluk,
Chinnakalrayanmalai Vadakunadu,
Salem District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21644 of 2023
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM. J.,
(sha)
W.P.No.21644 of 2023
21.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
