Madras High Court
Nagarathinam vs L.S.Aravindkumar on 25 February, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu, S.Srimathy
W.A(MD)No.71 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 25.02.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.A(MD)No.71 of 2025
and
CMP(MD)Nos.383 and 384 of 2025
Nagarathinam ... Appellant
vs.
1. L.S.Aravindkumar
2. The District Collector,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul.
3. The Tahsildar,
Athoor Taluk,
Dindigul District.
4. The Taluk Surveyor,
Athoor Taluk,
Dindigul District. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters
Patent, against the order dated 24.10.2024 made in W.P(MD)No.25267 of
2024.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.A(MD)No.71 of 2025
For Appellant : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar for
M/s.Ajmal Associates
For R1 : Mr.A.R.Kannappan
For R2 to R4 : Mr.M.Sarangan
Additional Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by J.NISHA BANU, J.)
This writ appeal is filed against the order dated 24.10.2024
made in W.P(MD)No.25267 of 2024.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ appeal are as
follows:
The 1st respondent / writ petitioner filed the above writ petition
for a Mandamus to survey his properties comprised in S.Nos.350/2,
357/2, 358/1A, 359/2, 359/5 and 364/4 measuring a total extent of 20.07
Acres situate at Paraipatti Village, Athoor Taluk, Dindigul District in
Patta Nos.2442 and 2443 and to demarcate the four boundaries and give
a report by considering his applications. The Writ Court, finding that
the applications of the writ petitioner to survey and sub-divide the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
abovesaid property were not considered by the authorities, issued a
Mandamus in the following lines:
''4. Considering the request of the petitioner
and also the fact that the petitioner has made his
representations as early as on 13.09.2024, a
mandamus is issued to the respondents to conduct
survey and subdivision of the petition mentioned
property. The petitioner shall submit all the relevant
records to show his title to the property and the
respondents shall, after issuing notice to the adjacent
land owners and interested parties, hold an enquiry
and thereafter, proceed to pass orders either
surveying and subdividing the property or rejecting
the request. In the case of a rejection, a speaking order
shall be passed. The aforesaid exercise shall be
completed within a period of four weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order.''
3. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant, who is a third
party, after obtaining the leave of this Court, has filed the present
appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the 1st
respondent suppressing the civil suit in O.S.No.397 of 2010 (Re-
numbered as O.S.No.194 of 2019) on the file of the Principal District
Munsif Court, Athoor, pending between the appellant along with others
and the 1st respondent along with others, has obtained the order from
the Writ Court, for surveying and sub-dividing the property in question.
He would further state that since the appellant was not made as a party
in the writ petition, she could not bring to the notice of the Writ Court
about the pendency of the said suit. Thus, the learned counsel would
pray for setting aside the order passed by the Writ Court.
5. Heard both sides.
6. Perusal of the plaint in O.S.No.397 of 2010 (Re-numbered as
O.S.No.194 of 2019) enclosed in the typedset of papers shows that the
appellant along with 8 others have sought for the relief of declaration,
recovery of possession and permanent injunction in respect of the suit
properties. Originally, the 1st respondent though was not added as a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
party in the suit, subsequently, he was impleaded as 8th defendant in the
suit in the year 2011. The schedule of properties appended to the plaint
includes the property in S.Nos.357/2, 358/1A and 359/5, which were
stated to have purchased by the 1st respondent through a sale deed
dated 28.07.2010. In the above suit, the plaintiffs also sought to declare
the said sale deed dated 28.07.2010 as null and void.
7. Admittedly, no interim order has been passed in the suit.
Therefore, as on date, the 1st respondent/writ petitioner is the owner of
the property in S.Nos.350/2, 357/2, 358/1A, 359/2, 359/5 and 364/4, by
virtue of the sale deed dated 28.07.2010. Merely because the 1st
respondent suppressed the abovesaid suit and not added the appellant
as a party in the writ petition, it cannot be said that the writ petitioner
has to work out all the remedy in respect of his property only in the
pending suit, especially when there is no interim injunction granted by
the trial Court in respect of the property purchased by the 1st
respondent. Therefore, the order of the Writ Court cannot be faulted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. However, the only grievance of the appellant is that no
notice was given to her before surveying the property of the 1st
respondent/writ petitioner and it is suffice if the appellant is put on
notice and then the property of the writ petitioner is re-surveyed.
9. It is also admitted by the learned Additional Government
Pleader appearing for the 3rd respondent/Tahsildar that without issuing
notice to the appellant, the property of the writ petitioner was surveyed.
10. In view of the above submissions, the 3rd
respondent/Tahsildar is directed to issue a notice to the appellant and
then conduct re-survey of the property of the 1st respondent/writ
petitioner as directed by the Writ Court. After considering the
objections that have to be submitted by the respective parties to the
survey report, and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the
respective parties, the 3rd respondent shall pass appropriate orders on
merits and in accordance with law. The entire exercise shall be
completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11. With the above directions, the Writ Appeal is disposed of.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[J.N.B, J.] [S.S.Y, J.]
25.02.2025
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
bala
To
1. The District Collector,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul.
2. The Tahsildar,
Athoor Taluk,
Dindigul District.
3. The Taluk Surveyor,
Athoor Taluk,
Dindigul District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
J.NISHA BANU, J.
AND
S.SRIMATHY, J.
bala
JUDGMENT MADE IN
DATED : 25.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
