Madras High Court
R.Tamilselvi vs The Secretary To Government on 15 September, 2023
W.P.No.26471 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.09.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.26471 of 2023
R.Tamilselvi .. Petitioner
vs
State Rep. By
1.The Secretary to Government,
Department of Revenue,
Government of Tamilnadu,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai - 09.
2.The Tahsildar,
Tharapuram, Tiruppur District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tharapuram, Tiruppur District.
4.The Sub Collector,
Tharapuram District.
5.Valliathal
6.G.Kathiresan .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to
4 to take appropriate action upon the representation dated
12.04.2023 of the petitioner herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.P.No.26471 of 2023
For Petitioner : Mrs.V.Anuradha
For Respondents : Mr.G.Krishnaraja
AGP
ORDER
The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the
respondents nos. 1 to 4 to consider the representation of the
petitioner dated 12.04.2023 and to pass appropriate orders.
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”.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.26471 of 2023
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.
39. It is contended by the petitioner
that the authorities are making certain
findings regarding the title, ownership in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.26471 of 2023
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.26471 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.
4. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.
15.09.2023
Index:Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
ssm
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Department of Revenue, Government of Tamilnadu,
Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 09.
2.The Tahsildar,
Tharapuram, Tiruppur District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tharapuram, Tiruppur District.
4.The Sub Collector,
Tharapuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.26471 of 2023
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM,J.
ssm
W.P.No.26471 of 2023
15.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
