The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following the procedures outlined in the Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, to ensure fair consideration of property disputes and the rights of the parties involved.

M. VENUGOPAL, J.

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-A1, 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 – Ganesan (late) and his brothers Palanisamy (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 which was received in her husband's name Muniappan 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 husband [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 th