SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Mad) 2837

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. VENUGOPAL, R. PONGIAPPAN, JJ.
P. Dhamayanthi – Petitioner
Versus
The District Collector, Tirupur & Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 30502 of 2018 & W.M.P. No. 35565 of 2018
Decided On : 20-11-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: S. Anil Sandeep.
For the Respondents: J. Pothiraj, K. Ravikumar.

The importance of providing the petitioner with an opportunity to present her grievances and submit necessary documents before a final decision is made, as well as the requirement for the authorities to act in a fair and diligent manner.

Headnote:

Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act - Property Dispute - 1923 - Sections 9, 10, 11, 12, 12B, 14 - The court directed the authorities to conduct a survey, provide the survey report to the petitioner, and give her an opportunity to present her grievances before taking a final decision. The petitioner was also allowed to submit necessary documents to prove her title and possession. The authorities were instructed to pass an unbiased and free final order, considering the factual and legal pleas raised by the petitioner.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner claimed ownership and possession of a property for over 33 years. She received a notice from the Executive Officer, branding her house as an encroachment and requiring its removal. The petitioner disputed the survey and sought redressal under the Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923.

Finding of the Court:

The court directed the authorities to conduct a survey, provide the survey report to the petitioner, and give her an opportunity to present her grievances before taking a final decision. The petitioner was also allowed to submit necessary documents to prove her title and possession. The authorities were instructed to pass an unbiased and free final order, considering the factual and legal pleas raised by the petitioner.

Issues: Disputed survey, encroachment notice, jurisdiction of the Executive Officer, right to redressal under the Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of providing the petitioner with an opportunity to present her grievances and submit necessary documents before a final decision is made. It highlighted the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, and directed the authorities to act in a fair and diligent manner.

Final Decision: The Writ Petition was disposed of with the court directing the authorities to conduct a survey, provide the survey report to the petitioner, and give her an opportunity to present her grievances before taking a final decision. The petitioner was also allowed to submit necessary documents to prove her title and possession. The authorities were instructed to pass an unbiased and free final order, considering the factual and legal pleas raised by the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. J. Pothiraj, Learned Special Government Pleader for Respondents 1 & 2 and Mr. K. Ravikumar, Learned Additional Government Pleader for the 3rd Respondent.

2. No counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the Respondents 1 to 3.

3. According to the Petitioner, she and her family are residing at Door No. 24-A/52, Pallapalayam Church Street, Palladam Taluk, Tirupur District in Natham Survey No. 468/A1, Samalapuram Village, for more than 33 years. In fact, the property was purchased jointly in the names of her husband – Palanisamy (late) and his brothers Ganesan (late) and Ramaraj, by means of registered sale deed dated 04.12.1984 on the file of the Sub Registrar Office, Sulur. She along with her family members are in possession of the property in the present form for all these years without any hindrance, let or dispute whatsoever. Indeed, the electricity service connection in respect of their house stands in her husband's name and she is also paying the property tax which stands in her husband's name.

4. The stand of the Petitioner is that she came to know through an intimation issued by the Palladam Taluk Office as regards a survey in the Pallapalayam Church Street, where a residence is situated. The survey was conducted by the 2nd Respondent/Tahsildar, Palladam Taluk, Tirupur District on 14.09.2018. She was not made known about the outcome and result of the survey. However, to her shock and dismay, she received a sudden notice dated 14.09.2018 through registered post from the 3rd Respondent/Executive Officer, Samalapuram Town Panchayat, Tirupur District that her house is an encroachment which requires to be removed within 15 days from the date of receipt of that notice. Till date, she is not served with the notice of the decision and the outcome of the survey conducted by the 2nd Respondent. In the event of notice being served on her, the Petitioner has a right of Appeal as per the Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 and she has a right to approach a Civil Court for ultimate determination of issues pertaining to the disputed survey and boundaries.

5. At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner had addressed a representation dated 24.09.2018 to the authorities concerned (including all the Respondents) to have a relook into the matter. However, the impugned notice dated 29.10.2018 was issued by the 3rd Respondent which was served on her [through registered post] requiring her to remove her house in Survey No. 468/A1, Samalapuram Village, Pallapalayam Church Street within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice etc.

6. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner comes out with an argument that in the impugned notice dated 29.10.2018, no extent or details were furnished and the said communication is in negation of the Principles of the Natural Justice.

7. In this connection, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner emphatically points out that the Petitioner is the owner and occupier of the property in question which she had purchased and in fact, the Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 provides for redressal of her grievance against any disputed survey, that too only after the results of the survey map thereon are made known to her by the Surveying Authority i.e. the 2nd Respondent herein. As such, there is no room for the 3rd Respondent/Executive Officer to brand her house as an encroachment and there is no scope for such an action except for the survey.

8. Yet another contention advanced on behalf of the Petitioner is that the 3rd Respondent/ Executive Officer has exceeded his jurisdiction and has exercised his jurisdiction in an irregular and illegal manner, besides acted in great haste, which has resulted in issuance of impugned notice dated 29.10.2018 which is legally unsustainable.

9. At this juncture, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court that the Petitioner on 05.11.2018 through









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top