Madras HC Orders 8-Week Boundary Survey Of Salem Land, With Adjacent Owners Given A Chance To Raise Objections

In brief

The question

Whether the authorities should be directed to consider the petitioner’s applications and conduct a survey and boundary demarcation of the subject property

The court held

The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to entertain the petitioner’s two applications, have the second respondent measure the property in accordance with the relevant records, issue notice to the petitioner and affected parties, and complete the measurement, boundary-stone fixation, and issuance of a reasoned final operational order within eight weeks of receiving a copy of the order.

It also directed

Police assistance could be sought in the event of obstruction.

No costs were awarded.

01Facts

The petitioner claimed ownership of 1,207.5 sq. ft. in Old Survey No. 85/18 (New Survey No. 85/18A5), Veerakkalpudur Village, under a registered sale deed dated 8 May 2002.

p. 2

The petitioner had submitted two online applications seeking survey and demarcation of the property, but alleged that no action had been taken.

p. 2

Respondents 4 and 5 were described as adjacent landowners.

p. 2

The petitioner sought a writ directing survey, boundary-stone fixation with police assistance, and issuance of patta.

pp. 2–3

The Court dispensed with notice to respondents 4 and 5 and took up the petition for final disposal at the admission stage.

p. 4

02Issues

i.Whether the authorities should be directed to consider the petitioner’s applications and conduct a survey and boundary demarcation of the subject property

pp. 4–5

ii.Whether that process should include notice to affected parties, an opportunity to submit objections and documents, and a time-bound decision

p. 5

03Law Applied

The petition invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India, under which the High Court may issue directions in an appropriate case.

The Court directed that the survey be conducted by reference to the relevant Field Measurement Book (FMB) sketches, revenue records, and the parties’ parental title deeds, with notice and a fair opportunity for the petitioner, adjacent landowners, and any other counter-claimants to present their objections and documents.

p. 5

No statutory provision or precedent was identified as the basis of the directions.

04Reasoning

The Court did not determine the merits of either side’s property claims.

pp. 4–5

Given the limited relief sought and the Government Pleader’s submission that the applications would be considered within a court-fixed timeframe, it ordered a fresh field survey and demarcation based on the specified records.

pp. 4–5

Notice and an opportunity to be heard were required to ensure that the petitioner and potentially affected parties could participate in the process.

pp. 4–5

The Court also permitted the revenue authorities to seek police assistance if third parties obstructed the demarcation.

p. 5