Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a 90-year-old lady, owned a property forming part of Door No.4/25, comprised in S.No.1021/22, Vadakukaraseri Village, Srivaikundam Taluk, Thoothukudi District, covered by Natham Patta No.348. She intended to construct a toilet on her property but was prevented by the objections of the fifth respondent, who claimed physical possession of a portion. Consequently, the petitioner sought a survey of her property and applied on 19.02.2024 for the same. Despite her application and a reminder dated 23.01.2025, the respondents, including the District Collector, Revenue Divisional Officer, Tahsildar, and Head Surveyor, failed to mark the four boundaries of her property, which prompted her to file the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus. The core legal issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to the direction sought for survey and boundary marking when a third party raised objections. The petitioner contended that the inaction of the authorities hindered her basic need to construct a toilet at her advanced age. On behalf of respondents 1 to 4, the Additional Government Pleader submitted that the fifth respondent was in physical possession of a portion of the property, and thus, while a survey had been conducted, the boundaries could not be fixed due to the dispute. The fifth respondent, though served, did not appear. The court, exercising its writ jurisdiction, balanced the interests of both parties. It directed respondents 3 and 4 (Tahsildar and Head Surveyor) to fix the four boundary stones based on the survey already conducted, in the presence of both the petitioner and the fifth respondent. Crucially, the court clarified that under the guise of fixing boundaries, there shall be no dispossession of the fifth respondent if he is found to be in possession; in such a scenario, the petitioner would have to resort to due process of law for recovery of possession. The exercise was ordered to be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Additionally, recognizing the petitioner's advanced age and the potential for breach of peace, the court permitted the survey authorities to seek police assistance from the jurisdictional police station to ensure a peaceful survey. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. The judgment underscores the court's role in facilitating administrative action for boundary demarcation while safeguarding possessory rights and maintaining law and order.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus - Survey and Boundary Marking - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - Petitioner, a 90-year-old senior citizen, sought survey of her property to enable construction of a toilet; fifth respondent objected and was in physical possession of a portion. The court directed respondents to fix four boundary stones based on the survey already conducted, in the presence of the petitioner and the fifth respondent, and clarified that no dispossession shall occur under the guise of fixing boundaries; if the fifth respondent is in possession, the petitioner may take recourse to due process of law for recovery of possession. The court further permitted police assistance to prevent breach of peace, if required, and directed the exercise to be completed within four weeks. Held, the writ petition is disposed of with the above directions and no costs. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for survey and boundary marking of her property when a third party objects?
Final Decision
Writ Petition disposed of. Respondents 3 and 4 directed to fix four boundary stones based on survey already conducted, in presence of petitioner and fifth respondent, within four weeks. Clarified that no dispossession shall occur under guise of fixing boundaries; if fifth respondent is in possession, petitioner may resort to due process of law for recovery. Survey authorities may seek police assistance to prevent breach of peace. No costs.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- the court may direct survey and boundary marking while ensuring no dispossession occurs
- the aggrieved party may pursue due process for recovery of possession
- police assistance can be sought to maintain peace during survey
