Boundary demarcation must follow a notified survey, while title disputes remain for civil courts.

The petitioner claimed ownership and possession of 0.58.0 hectares in Survey No. 727/1, Kuppatti Village, acquired by her husband and later settled on her; the revenue records had been mutated in her name.

After an online application for survey and demarcation allegedly could not be acted upon because of obstruction by private respondents, she sought action from the revenue and police authorities, including police assistance and permission to erect fencing.

The State submitted that the Tahsildar would consider the representation if a time frame were fixed.

The Court dispensed with notice to the private respondents and disposed of the petition at the admission stage.

1. Whether the Court should direct the revenue authorities to conduct a fresh survey and demarcation of the petitioner’s land on her application.

2. Whether the survey process should include notice to affected parties and an opportunity to present objections and title documents.

The petition invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court directed that the survey be conducted by reference to the relevant Field Measurement Book sketches, revenue records and the parties’ parental title deeds, with notice and a fair opportunity for affected parties to present their objections and documents.

It also recognised that disputes concerning title or inter se civil rights may be pursued before the competent Civil Court.

Without deciding the parties’ competing property claims, the Court considered it appropriate to require the Tahsildar to act on the pending application and arrange a fresh field survey and boundary demarcation.

To ensure an informed and procedurally fair process, the order requires notice to the petitioner, respondents 4 to 10, and other counter-claimants or adjacent landowners, and permits them to place objections and title documents before the surveying authority.

The Court left any underlying title or civil-rights dispute to the Civil Court.

The order states that the exercise must be completed within “twelve (10) weeks” from receipt of a copy, an internally inconsistent period.

The Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s claim and left title or inter se civil-rights disputes to the competent Civil Court; no costs were ordered.