Madras High Court
Sankaran vs The Thasildar on 19 February, 2025
W.P.(MD) No.7929 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED:19.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
W.P.(MD) No.7929 of 2024
Sankaran ... Petitioner
vs.
The Thasildar,
Trichendur Taluk Office,
Trichendur Taluk,
Thoothukudi District. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in
O.Mu.G1/2107/2023, dated 12.08.2023 on the file of the respondent and quash
the same as illegal and consequentially direct the respondent to survey the land in
S.Nos.82/4 and 582/27 in accordance with decree granted in S.A(MD)No.311 of
2019, dated 23.02.2022 within time frame to be fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.B.Saravanan
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The writ petitioner challenges the impugned order of the respondent
rejecting the petitioner's request for survey of lands in S.Nos.82/4 and 582/27.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional
Government Pleader for the respondent.
3.The petitioner's case in the writ petition is that he is the owner of the
lands in old Natham S.No.186/1 which corresponds to new S.Nos.582/24, 582/27
and 582/12. The suit was filed in O.S.No.1195 of 1995 on the file of the
Additional District Munsif Court, Trichendur, against the District Collector,
Tuticorin and Executive Officer, Mutharamman Temple, Kulasekarapattinam,
seeking the relief of declaration of title, permanent injunction and mandatory
injunction to grant manaivari patta in respect of the above mentioned survey
numbers measuring 6.25 cents. The said suit was dismissed by the trial court in
and by a Judgment dated 24.09.1999. The petitioner along with his brothers
preferred an appeal in A.S.No.13 of 2000 on the file of the Additional District
Judge, Thoothukudi and the learned Additional District Judge confirmed the
dismissal of the suit by the District Munsif Court, Trichendur and also dismissed
the appeal.
4.Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the petitioner and his brothers filed
S.A(MD)No.311 of 2019 before this Court. The said second appeal was allowed
in part on 23.02.2022 finding that the plaintiffs, ie., the petitioner herein and his
brothers were entitled to a decree for the north-south measurement of 5 ¼
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
carpenter cubic feet and the east-west measurement of 60 carpenter cubic feet in
the first schedule property. It is only consequential to the said Judgment of this
Court that the petitioner has made a representation seeking survey by
representation dated 24.07.2023. However, without noticing the findings rendered
by this Court in the said second appeal, the request for survey has been rejected
by the respondent citing that the portion of the property is classified as pathway.
The same contention was raised even in the civil litigation, which has attained
finality before this Court. In fact, while disposing of the second appeal, this Court
has clearly held that though the plaintiffs, including the writ petitioner, had
prayed for larger relief, they were certainly entitled to a lesser relief/decree and
restricted the declaratory prayer in respect of north-south 5 ¾ carpenter cubic feet
and east-west 60 carpenter cubic feet. It is only in order to demarcate the said
portion of the property that the representation itself has been given subsequent to
the disposal of the second appeal. While so, the respondent, without appreciating
the purport of the Judgment passed by this Court, has reiterated the defense taken
in the suit that S.No.582/27 is classified as a 'street' and therefore rejected the
application for survey. The respondent was a party to the civil litigation in
O.S.No.1195 of 1995 which culminated in S.A(MD)No.311 of 2019. Therefore,
having suffered a part decree in the second appeal, it is not open to the respondent
to fall back on the contentions raised in the written statement and contend that
part of the property is classified as a pathway. The said issue has been discussed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
by this Court while disposing of the second appeal and what the petitioner seeks
is only survey in line with the Judgment of this Court in S.A(MD)No.311 of 2019.
Therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondent is liable to be set aside.
5.Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated
12.08.2023 in O.Mu.G1/2107/2023 passed by the respondent is set aside. The
respondent shall conduct a survey in line with the findings of this Court in
S.A(MD)No.311 of 2019 and pass final orders on the petitioner's application,
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No
costs.
19.02.2025
sji
NCC: Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
To
The Thasildar,
Trichendur Taluk Office,
Trichendur Taluk,
Thoothukudi District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P.B.BALAJI, J.
sji
19.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
