Madras High Court
R.Eswaran vs The Land Surveyor on 9 June, 2025
W.P.(MD) No.10499 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 09.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
W.P.(MD) No.10499 of 2025
and
W.M.P(MD) No.7846 of 2025
1.R.Eswaran
2.R.Rajaji
3.R.Rajapandi ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Land Surveyor,
Thiruppuvanam Taluk Office,
Sivagangai.
2.The Sub Inspector of Police,
Palayanur Police Station,
Thiruppuvanam Taluk,
Sivagangai District.
3.Muruganantham
4.Veerappan
5.Selvi ... Respondents
_________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 02:44:21 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.10499 of 2025
Prayer :- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents
1 to 3 along with other respondents not to forcibly enter into the demised
premises in Survey No.249/2 in Keelarangiyam Village, Melarangiyam
Group, Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District, without following
contemplated procedure.
For Petitioners : M/s.Vijayakumari Natarajan
For R1 : Mrs.K.Malathi
Additional Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi
Government Advocate
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of writ of
mandamus forbearing the respondents from entering the property situated
in Survey No.249/2, Keelarangiyam Village, Melarangiyam Group,
Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District, without following due
process of law.
2.Heard the arguments of M/s.Vijayakumari Natarajan, learned
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 02:44:21 pm )
counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mrs.K.Malathi, learned Additional
Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and
Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate appearing for
the second respondent.
3.It is seen from the affidavit and the typed set of papers filed
along with the writ petition that the third respondent herein filed an
application before the first respondent for survey of the above mentioned
property. When the first respondent attempted to survey the property, the
petitioners herein filed the instant writ petition with the above mentioned
prayer. It is not in dispute that originally the petitioner's father,
Ramuthevar filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the third
respondent's predecessor-in-interest, namely, Selvi in O.S.No.32 of 1999
on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Manamadurai. The said
suit was decreed in respect of declaration prayer alone in favour of the
petitioner's father, Ramuthevar. Aggrieved by the same, the third
respondent's predecessor-in-title, Selvi filed an appeal in A.S.No.64 of
2002, on the file of the Sub Court, Sivagangai. The above said
Ramuthevar filed a cross appeal challenging the portion of the decree
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 02:44:21 pm )
against him. The First Appellate Court dismissed the cross appeal filed
by Ramuthevar and allowed the first appeal filed by Selvi. The suit for
declaration and injunction filed by petitioner's father, Ramuthevar was
dismissed in its entirety.
4.Aggrieved by the decision of the First Appellate Court, the
petitioner's father, Ramuthevar filed two separate second appeals in
S.A(MD) Nos.27 and 918 of 2006 before this Court. The said second
appeals were preferred against the judgment allowing of the first appeal
filed by Selvi and the dismissal of the cross appeal filed by him. Both
second appeals were heard together and the findings of the First
Appellate Court were affirmed and the second appeals were dismissed.
Thus, the Civil Court found that the petitioner's father, Ramuthevar had
no title over the subject property. Subsequent to the disposal of the
second appeals, the petitioner's father, Ramuthevar, died. Thereafter, the
petitioner preferred review applications seeking review of the judgment
and decree passed in the second appeals in Rev.Aplc(MD) No.122 and
123 of 2014. On the strength of the pendency of the review applications,
the petitioner has come before this Court seeking aforesaid relief.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 02:44:21 pm )
5.As narrated above, the petitioner's father filed a suit for
declaration of title against the third respondent's predecessor-in-interest,
Selvi and the said suit was dismissed and confirmed in the second
appeals. Merely because, the review applications filed by the petitioner
are pending, we cannot restrain the official respondents from surveying
the subject property on the application submitted by the third respondent.
Mere survey of the property will not affect the right of the either party
over the subject property. Therefore, this Court, is not inclined to grant
the prayer sought for in this writ petition. Accordingly, this Writ Petition
is dismissed, with the clarification that the survey of the property by the
respondents on the application submitted by the third respondent will not
affect the rights of the either party over the subject property, if any and
the same shall be subject to result in review applications. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
09.06.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
cp
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 02:44:21 pm )
S.SOUNTHAR,J
cp
To
1.The Land Surveyor,
Thiruppuvanam Taluk Office,
Sivagangai.
2.The Sub Inspector of Police,
Palayanur Police Station,
Thiruppuvanam Taluk,
Sivagangai District.
Dated: 09.06.2025
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 02:44:21 pm )
