01Facts
The authorities alleged that the petitioner had encroached on Survey No. 55/3 and had conducted a survey. The petitioner challenged the survey, alleging that the original Field Measurement Book (FMB) measurements had not been considered and that encroachments by respondents 10 and 11 had prejudiced the assessment against him
p. 3He sought to quash a Form-III notice dated 9 October 2026 and a consequential communication dated 12 October 2026, and to restrain further eviction proceedings pending disposal of two other writ petitions
p. 302Issues
i.1. Whether a fresh survey of Survey Nos. 55/3 and 55/6 was required in light of the petitioner’s grievances about the earlier survey and the use of FMB measurements
pp. 3–4ii.2. Whether any eviction-related order arising from the survey should be enforced immediately
p. 403Law Applied
The petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution, but the Court cited no particular statute, precedent, or substantive legal test in its reasoning
p. 3It directed that the fresh survey be conducted after notice to the petitioner, respondent 10, and any other stakeholders, with due regard to the actual FMB and other revenue records; it also required a speaking order and allowed time to seek relief before enforcement of any adverse order
p. 404Reasoning
Given the petitioner’s specific objections to the earlier survey—including the alleged failure to use original FMB measurements and the claimed prejudice arising from others’ encroachments—the Court ordered a fresh survey covering both Survey Nos. 55/3 and 55/6
pp. 3–4To ensure the exercise addressed those concerns, it required notice to relevant stakeholders, consideration of the FMB and revenue records, and a speaking order. It did not decide whether the petitioner had encroached; that question was left to the survey and the subsequent order
p. 405Holding
The writ petition was disposed of with directions to the Tahsildar (eighth respondent) to conduct the fresh survey and pass a speaking order.
p. 4The petitioner was permitted to submit relevant materials within one week of receiving the order. If the survey indicated encroachment, an appropriate order could be passed, but it was not to be enforced immediately; the petitioner was to receive two weeks to approach the Court for relief. The impugned order was to abide by the survey outcome. No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed
p. 4Original Court PDF
Ravichandran GvsThe Special Secretary to Government
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
