A land survey may proceed despite objections, but possession cannot be disturbed without due process.

The first respondent obtained a decree for declaration and permanent injunction in O.S. No. 85 of 2020 against the appellants and another defendant; the judgment records the decree date as 22 December 2023.

He later sought a survey of the properties from the revenue authorities. On his writ petition, the Single Judge directed the authorities to notify the parties and any objectors before surveying, provide police assistance if requested, and complete the exercise within twelve weeks. The order also stated that any removal of the appellants from possession must be through due process of law and that the survey would remain subject to the result of their appeal.

The appellants challenged that order, arguing that it had been made without notice to them and while their first appeal against the civil decree was pending at the SR stage.

1. Whether the Single Judge’s directions to conduct a survey, after notice to the parties and objectors, warranted interference in the writ appeal.

2. Whether the absence of prior notice to the appellants before the Single Judge passed the order required that order to be set aside, given the opportunity to object before the competent authority and the protection against dispossession without due process.

A person seeking measurement of land may approach the jurisdictional Survey Tahsildar in accordance with law, and objections raised by private parties may be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law.

A person in possession may be removed only by following due process of law.

The Court considered that the Single Judge’s order required notice to the appellants and any rival claimants before the survey, giving them an opportunity to raise objections before the competent authority.

It also found that the order protected the appellants’ possession by prohibiting their removal except through due process, and made the survey subject to the outcome of their appeal. In those circumstances, the Court found no perversity or other basis to interfere, notwithstanding the appellants’ objections concerning notice and the pending appeal.

No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.