Madras High Court
S.A.Xavier vs C.Pragalathan ... 1St on 12 February, 2025
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
W.A.(MD)No.1090 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.A(MD)No.1090 of 2020
and
C.M.P(MD)No.5918 of 2020
1.S.A.Xavier
2.Dhanam Xavier ... Appellants /
Respondents 3 & 4
Vs.
1.C.Pragalathan ... 1st Respondent /
Petitioner
2.The Commissioner,
Tiruchirapalli City Municipal Corporation,
Bharathidasan Salai,
Cantonment, Tiruchirapalli – 620 001.
3.The Town Sub Inspector of Survey,
Tiruchirapalli City Municipal Corporation,
Ayiramangalam Zone,
No.18, Palakkarai Main Road,
Palakkarai,
Tiruchirapalli – 620 001. ... Respondents 2 & 3 /
Respondents 1 & 2
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside
the order passed in W.P(MD)No.8962 of 2020 dated 15.10.2020.
For Appellants : Mr.K.R.Laxman
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/4
W.A.(MD)No.1090 of 2020
For Respondents : Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar
for Mr.Sheena Palanivelu for R.1
Mr.R.Baskaran
for M/s.R.B.Associates for R.2
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)
After hearing the learned counsel on either side, we are of the
view that interference with the learned single Judge is not warranted.
Paragraph 6 of the order passed by the learned single Judge reads as
follows:
“6. At the first blush, the scope of the prayer is
very limited and this Court does not want to dwell upon
the merits of the matter, as it will affect the rights of
either parties. The only plea raised on the side of the
Respondents 3 and 4 is that survey should be conducted
along with S.No.36. The question as to whether there is a
valid rectification deed executed or not and whether the
width of the road is 20ft. or 23ft., need to be ascertained
by the Surveyor. Therefore, the Respondents 1 & 2 /
Corporation are directed to conduct survey in S.Nos.3 to
5, taking note of FMB sketch / layout / sale deed
mentioned supra and depending upon the outcome of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
survey, it is open to the parties to redress their
grievances before the Appropriate Forum. Since the Writ
Petitioner is going to be benefited by the survey, the
entire expenses for survey shall be borne by the Writ
Petitioner. It is needless to mention that the persons, who
are likely to be affected by the survey should be heard.”
After a careful reading of the aforesaid paragraph, we are of the view that
the learned single Judge had not directed dispossession of any party. He
has only passed an order for survey and measurement alone. Based on
the result of survey, the parties will have to establish their claim only
before the jurisdictional civil Court. We come to the conclusion that the
impugned order passed by the learned single Judge does not prejudice to
the rights of either of the parties.
2.This Writ Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[G.R.S., J.] [M.J.R., J.]
12.02.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
MGA
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
MGA
To
1.The Commissioner,
Tiruchirapalli City Municipal Corporation,
Bharathidasan Salai,
Cantonment, Tiruchirapalli – 620 001.
2.The Town Sub Inspector of Survey,
Tiruchirapalli City Municipal Corporation,
Ayiramangalam Zone,
No.18, Palakkarai Main Road,
Palakkarai,
Tiruchirapalli – 620 001.
and
12.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
