Madras High Court
Kasthuri vs The Commissionerate Of Survey And ... on 21 June, 2023
W.P.No.18174 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.18174 of 2023
Kasthuri ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Commissionerate of Survey and Settlement,
Kanchipuram.
2. The Tahsildar,
Kanchipuram Taluk,
Kanchipuram.
3. The Revenue Inspector,
Kanchipuram Taluk,
Kanchipuram.
4. The Land Surveyor,
Kanchipuram Taluk,
Kanchipuram. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to survey and
measure the petition schedule property and lay stones within the time
stipulated by this Court based on my application dated 17.04.2023.
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18174 of 2023
For Petitioner : Mr. S.Veeraraghavan
For Respondent : Mr. S.Ravichandran
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The relief sought for in the writ petition is for directing the
respondents 1 to 4 to survey and measure the petition schedule property and
lay stones within the time stipulated by this Court based on my application
dated 17.04.2023.
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 & 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”.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18174 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18174 of 2023
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18174 of 2023
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.
21.06.2023
skr
Index : Yes
Speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18174 of 2023
To
1. The Commissionerate of Survey and Settlement,
Kanchipuram.
2. The Tahsildar,
Kanchipuram Taluk,
Kanchipuram.
3. The Revenue Inspector,
Kanchipuram Taluk,
Kanchipuram.
4. The Land Surveyor,
Kanchipuram Taluk,
Kanchipuram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18174 of 2023
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
skr
W.P.No.18174 of 2023
21.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
