Case Note & Summary
The case involved a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by Rajalakshmi seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Tahsildar and Taluk Surveyor of Palani Taluk to conduct a survey and fix boundaries for fencing based on her application dated 06.08.2024. The petitioner claimed title through a registered settlement deed and a separate patta. The private respondents were parties to earlier civil litigation that originated as O.S.No.68 of 2012. The petitioner's application for survey remained pending without progress, allegedly due to the pendency of a second appeal, S.A.(MD)No.691 of 2024, which arose from concurrent findings of the lower courts in favour of the petitioner. Importantly, no interim order had been passed in that second appeal. The legal issue before the court was whether the mere pendency of a second appeal without any interim order could justify the withholding of a survey and boundary demarcation sought by a party possessing a registered settlement deed and separate patta. The petitioner's counsel argued that the second appeal was filed against concurrent findings favouring the petitioner and that there was no stay, hence no impediment to the survey. The Special Government Pleader for the first two respondents submitted that the pendency of the second appeal was the reason the survey had not been conducted. The court found the petitioner's request reasonable, particularly since she had arrayed the private respondents who were parties to the civil suit. It noted that no interim order existed in the second appeal. The court observed that the authorities could not avoid their duty to conduct the survey on the ground of a pending appeal without a stay. It directed the respondents 1 and 2 to proceed with the survey after issuing notice to all respondents and hearing their objections, if any, and to complete the survey and demarcation of boundaries within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The court clarified that the pendency of the second appeal shall not be put against the petitioner for postponing or cancelling the survey. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Survey and Boundary Demarcation - Pendency of second appeal without interim order not a ground to deny survey - Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 (implied) and Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The petitioner held a registered settlement deed and separate patta with concurrent civil court findings in her favour and applied for survey on 06.08.2024, but the authorities delayed citing a pending second appeal. The court held that mere pendency of a second appeal without any interim order cannot be a reason to postpone or cancel the survey; the survey must be conducted after issuing notice to all respondents and hearing their objections. Held that the writ petition is disposed of with direction to complete survey and demarcation within eight weeks (Paras 5-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether pendency of a second appeal without any interim order can be a valid ground for revenue authorities to refuse or delay a survey and boundary demarcation sought by a party holding a registered settlement deed and separate patta?
Final Decision
The writ petition is disposed of. Respondents 1 and 2 shall conduct survey and demarcate boundaries within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after issuing notice to all respondents and hearing their objections. Mere pendency of the second appeal shall not be a ground to postpone or cancel the survey. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- mere pendency of second appeal without interim order is not a bar to survey
- survey to be conducted after notice and hearing objections
- authorities cannot postpone survey on ground of pending appeal
