Survey demarcation cannot prejudice pending civil proceedings or authorize fencing without court orders.

The first respondent obtained a writ-court direction for the authorities to survey and demarcate the boundaries of his property after giving notice to neighbouring landowners and considering objections.

The appellants, who were private respondents in the writ petition, challenged that order, stating that they had not been heard and that related civil proceedings were pending: their suit for injunction and declaration of title, and the first respondent’s execution petition arising from a specific-performance decree.

They also alleged that the first respondent had fenced the property after the survey; the first respondent disputed that allegation.

Whether the survey and demarcation conducted under the writ-court order could prejudice the parties’ rights in the pending civil proceedings.

Whether the first respondent could fence the disputed property following the survey, without obtaining orders in the pending civil proceedings.

The Court cited no statute or precedent. It applied the principles reflected in the writ-court order that affected neighbouring landowners should receive notice and an opportunity to object before a survey is conducted, and that the survey must be carried out on the merits and in accordance with law.

It further directed that the survey would not determine or prejudice the parties’ rights in pending civil proceedings, which were to be decided independently of the survey report; fencing required appropriate orders in those proceedings.

In view of the pending civil disputes and the allegation that fencing had followed the survey, the Court limited the effect of the survey rather than setting aside the survey direction.

It provided that the civil court must decide the parties’ rights without being influenced by the survey report.

To prevent the survey from being treated as authority to take possession or alter the disputed property, it also barred fencing unless the first respondent obtained appropriate orders in the pending civil proceedings.

The first respondent was prohibited from fencing the property without appropriate orders; if fencing had already been erected, he was to remove it and seek relief from the concerned court.

No costs were ordered, and the connected interim application was closed.