Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the petitioner's inability to construct a toilet on her property due to objections from the fifth respondent and the failure of revenue authorities to mark boundaries. The petitioner, a 90-year-old woman, owned property bearing Door No. 4/25, comprised in S.No. 1021/22, Vadakukaraseri Village, Srivaikundam Taluk, Thoothukudi District, covered by Natham Patta No. 348. She sought to construct a toilet but was hindered by the fifth respondent's objections, leading her to apply for a survey on 19.02.2024 and send a reminder on 23.01.2025. The revenue authorities conducted a survey but did not fix boundaries because the fifth respondent was in physical possession of a portion of the property. The petitioner approached the Madras High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus directing the respondents to measure her property by marking four boundaries. The court heard the petitioner's counsel and the Additional Government Pleader, who confirmed the survey had been done but boundaries were not fixed due to the fifth respondent's possession. The fifth respondent did not appear despite being served. Considering the circumstances, the court disposed of the writ petition by directing respondents 3 and 4 (the Tahsildar and Head Surveyor) to fix four boundary stones based on the survey already conducted, in the presence of both the petitioner and the fifth respondent. The court specifically clarified that under the guise of fixing boundaries, the fifth respondent shall not be dispossessed. The decision balanced the need to enable the petitioner to construct a basic amenity like a toilet with the protection of the possessory rights of the fifth respondent, ensuring that the administrative process did not become a tool for eviction.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus - Direction to fix boundary stones - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The petitioner, a 90-year-old, sought survey and marking of boundaries for construction of a toilet on her property. The court, noting that survey was already conducted but boundaries not fixed due to the fifth respondent's possession, directed respondents 3 and 4 to fix the four boundary stones in the presence of both parties, clarifying that no dispossession would occur. Held that the writ petition is disposed of with these directions (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents should be directed to measure the petitioner's property by marking four boundaries based on her representation and survey already conducted, considering the objections of the fifth respondent.
Final Decision
The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to respondents 3 and 4 (Tahsildar and Head Surveyor) to fix the four boundary stones based on the survey already conducted, in the presence of the petitioner and the fifth respondent. It was made clear that under the guise of fixing boundaries, there shall be no dispossession of the fifth respondent.
Law Points
- Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
- Article 226
- Constitution of India
- survey of property
- fixation of boundary stones
- no dispossession
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (03) 262
Mr.J.Joseph Zinoson for petitioner; Mr.B.Saravanan, Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1-4; No appearance for respondent no.5
1.The District Collector, Thoothukudi District; 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thoothukudi District; 3.The Tahsildar, Srivaikundam Taluk, Thoothukudi District; 4.The Head Surveyor, Srivaikundam Taluk, Thoothukudi District; 5.Madasamy
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking certiorarified mandamus for survey and fixation of boundary stones to enable construction of a toilet on petitioner's property.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought a direction from the court to the respondents to measure her property by marking four boundaries based on her representation dated 23.01.2025.
Filing Reason
The petitioner, a 90-year-old senior citizen, was unable to construct a toilet in her property due to objections from the fifth respondent, and despite her application and reminder, the revenue authorities had not fixed the boundaries.
Previous Decisions
The matter was heard for the first time on 07.03.2025 and disposed of on the same day without any prior orders.
Issues
Whether a writ of certiorarified mandamus should be issued directing the respondents to mark four boundaries of the petitioner's property based on her representation dated 23.01.2025.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that despite her application for survey and reminder, the authorities failed to act, preventing her from constructing a toilet.
The learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4 submitted that a survey had been conducted but boundaries could not be fixed because the fifth respondent was in physical possession of a portion of the property.
Ratio Decidendi
The court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 to remedy administrative inaction, directed the revenue authorities to fix the boundary stones based on a survey already conducted, ensuring that the process does not result in dispossession of any party in possession.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner intended to construct a toilet in her property...
...the petitioner sought for survey to be conducted and made an application on 19.02.2024.
...the respondents have not come forward to mark four boundaries of her property...
Learned Additional Government Pleader... would submit that the fifth respondent is in physical possession of a portion of the subject property and hence, the respondents have only conducted survey and have not been able to fix boundaries.
Considering the facts and circumstances... I deem it fit to dispose of the Writ Petition... “The respondents 3 and 4 shall fix the four boundary stones based on the survey already conducted in the presence of the petitioner and the fifth respondent. It is made clear that under the guise of four boundaries being fixed, there shall be no dispossession of the fifth respondent...
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on 07.03.2025. The court heard the petitioner's counsel and the Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4; the fifth respondent did not appear. The petition was disposed of on the same day.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226
