Tahsildar must conduct a fresh boundary survey after notice and in accordance with relevant records.

The petitioner claimed ownership of 2,204 sq. ft. in Old Survey No. 838 and New Survey No. 90/1 at Thirumullaivoyal Village, acquired by sale deed dated 30 March 2012. He alleged that the fifth respondent was attempting to trespass on the property by relying on forged documents.

After submitting an online application for a survey and boundary demarcation on 11 June 2026, and receiving no response, the petitioner sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The State’s counsel submitted that the application would be considered if the Court fixed a time limit.

Whether the Tahsildar should be directed to consider the petitioner’s survey application and arrange a survey and boundary demarcation of the property.

Whether such directions could be issued without determining the parties’ competing claims to title or civil rights.

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

The Court applied the principles that a survey and boundary demarcation should be conducted by the competent revenue authority with reference to relevant Field Measurement Book (FMB) sketches, revenue records, and the parties’ parental title deeds; affected parties should receive notice and an opportunity to present objections and documents; and administrative survey proceedings do not determine title or inter se civil rights, which remain for the competent Civil Court.

Given the limited relief sought and the State’s undertaking that the application would be considered within a Court-fixed timeframe, the Court directed the third respondent to entertain the application and arrange a fresh field survey through the fourth respondent.

To ensure a fair and record-based process, it required notice to the petitioner, the fifth respondent, and any other counter-claimants or adjacent landowners, and an opportunity for them to submit objections and title documents. The survey was to follow the relevant FMB sketches, revenue records, and parental title deeds. The Court expressly left the merits of title and civil rights undecided.

The Court expressed no opinion on the petitioner’s title claims and left the parties free to approach the competent Civil Court regarding title or inter se civil rights. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.