Writ courts cannot direct revenue survey and demarcation where title is disputed in pending civil litigation.

The first respondent purchased, jointly with Harinishanth, 2.99½ acres in Survey Nos.120/1, 120/2 and 120/3 of Emmampoondi B Village under a registered sale deed dated 30.04.2024, Document No.1669 of 2024.

After mutation of the revenue records, he submitted an online application dated 03.07.2024 and a representation dated 09.07.2024 seeking survey, identification of boundaries and erection of boundary stones.

As the revenue authorities did not act, he filed W.P.No.28152 of 2024 seeking a mandamus.

The appellant had already instituted O.S.No.443 of 2024 seeking partition of her alleged one-fourth share, a declaration that a settlement deed dated 11.09.2009 and four sale deeds dated 30.04.2024—including Document No.1669 of 2024—were void and not binding on her, and a permanent injunction.

An Advocate Commissioner appointed in the suit had only recorded the physical features of the property and had not conducted any survey or demarcation.

The learned Single Judge directed the Tahsildar to consider the first respondent’s application and representation and to survey and demarcate the property by laying boundary stones, after notice to the parties and subject to the outcome of the pending civil suit.

The appellant challenged that order in the present intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

Whether the Tahsildar could be directed under Article 226 of the Constitution to survey and demarcate land forming the subject matter of a pending partition and title suit.

Whether such a direction could be issued when the sale deed relied upon by the person seeking survey was itself challenged as void and not binding in the pending civil suit.

Whether the first respondent could pursue a parallel writ remedy for survey and demarcation when he was already a party to the pending civil proceedings.

The Court applied the principle that a revenue survey is intended to fix and record boundaries for revenue purposes and cannot be used to determine disputed title or possession.

Questions concerning title, possession and the validity or binding nature of settlement and sale deeds are essentially civil disputes falling within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and are not ordinarily to be resolved in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court further held that physical demarcation and erection of boundary stones may have a real and practical effect on possession and enjoyment and therefore should not be directed while the underlying title dispute is pending before the Civil Court.

The first respondent’s request for survey was founded on Document No.1669 of 2024, but that very sale deed was under challenge in O.S.No.443 of 2024 as void and not binding on the appellant.

Conducting a survey and laying boundary stones in his favour would necessarily proceed on the assumption that the sale deed was valid and that he was entitled to a defined extent of land.

The Court rejected the view that demarcation would merely assist the Civil Court or have no effect on the parties’ rights, observing that physical boundary stones could materially affect possession and enjoyment.

Since the first respondent was already a defendant in the pending suit, his grievance regarding survey and demarcation could be raised before that Civil Court through an appropriate application; invoking Article 226 for the same relief amounted to pursuing a parallel remedy.

The writ appeal was allowed, the learned Single Judge’s order dated 12.03.2026 in W.P.No.28152 of 2024 was set aside, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed without costs.

The first respondent was left at liberty to raise all contentions concerning survey and demarcation before the Civil Court in O.S.No.443 of 2024, which was directed to decide them independently and uninfluenced by the observations in the appellate judgment or the order under appeal.