Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by Muthu Muneeshwarapandian seeking a mandamus to the Tahsildar and Taluk Surveyor of Illupur Taluk to survey and fix boundaries of land measuring 0.22.5 ares in SF Nos.101/3 and 101/4 in Keelakurichi Village. The petitioner claimed to represent the true owners, Salai Jothi and Salai Nithilamani, who had acquired the property through a registered settlement deed dated 18.10.2012 from their mother, with revenue records mutated and patta issued in their favour. A civil suit, O.S.No.15 of 2023, filed by one Janagi for declaration, partition, and permanent injunction against the principals and others, was pending before the Sub-Court, Keeranur. When the petitioner attempted to fence the property to protect it, neighbours Durairaj, Pandi, and Balasubramani objected, leading to a police complaint; the neighbours gave an undertaking to abide by the civil court's orders. The petitioner sought survey to dispel the villagers' apprehension that he was trying to usurp a common pathway and to clarify the precise boundary between private land and the public road. The core legal issue was whether a mandamus could issue for a revenue survey when a related civil suit was pending and neighbours had objected. The petitioner argued that his principals were absolute owners, the neighbours had no right, and the survey was necessary for clarity. The respondents, through the Additional Government Pleader, submitted that objectors should be heard during the survey but otherwise had no objection to the application being decided. The court found no impediment to conducting the survey, noting the petitioner's prima facie ownership and the limited purpose of ascertaining physical extent without adjudicating title. The writ petition was disposed of with directions to the respondents to conduct the survey within eight weeks, after giving advance notice to the named neighbours, considering the petitioner's claim and any objections, and demarcating the land; if the petitioner's possession was confirmed to the extent of 22.5 ares, he could fence only that area and must not fence any land beyond the demarcated boundary. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Revenue Law - Survey and Demarcation - Writ of Mandamus - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - Petitioner sought survey of land to clarify boundaries between private property and a public pathway, and to address objections from neighbours; a related civil suit was pending, but no interim order restrained survey. Court held that no impediment existed and directed revenue authorities to conduct survey after giving advance notice to objecting neighbours, consider their objections, and demarcate the land; if petitioner's possession confirmed, fencing permitted only on demarcated extent. Held: Survey may be ordered to ascertain physical boundaries without adjudicating title, ensuring fair hearing to interested parties and preventing encroachment. (Paras 2-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition for mandamus seeking direction to the revenue authorities to measure the petitioner's land and fix boundaries should be allowed, in light of pending civil suit and objections of neighbors.
Final Decision
Writ petition disposed of with directions: respondents to conduct survey based on petitioner's application dated 01.01.2025 within eight weeks, after giving advance notice to Durairaj, Pandi, and Balasubramani; consider the claim of petitioner and objections of neighbours; survey and demarcate the property; if petitioner's claim to possession of 22.5 ares in S.Nos.101/3 and 101/4 is confirmed, petitioner may fence only that extent and shall not put up any fence on land beyond the demarcated area. No costs.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- A writ of mandamus under Article 226 may be issued to direct revenue authorities to survey land and fix boundaries
- while conducting survey
- the authorities must give notice to interested parties and consider their objections.
