Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 120
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
G.D. Rajkumar - Appellant
Versus
The Director of Survey & Land Records, Office of the Directorate of Survey & Land Records, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P. No. 16216 of 2019 & WMP Nos. 15927 & 32454 of 2019
Decided On : 17-03-2020
For the Petitioner:AR.L. Sundaresan, Senior Counsel, G. Maniprabhu, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1 to R4, J. Purushothaman, Additional Government Pleader, R5, N. Senthil Kumar, Advocate.
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries, Act, 1923 - Section 13 - Corrections in revenue records behind back - Quash - Present Writ Petition has been filed challenging order passed by respondent in his proceedings confirming order passed by respondent in his proceedings wherein order passed by respondent was set aside and for a consequential direction to respondents restore records as it stood prior to by making necessary corrections case of petitioner is that he is absolute owner of the property situated in at Village Coimbatore North - According to petitioner property is bounded on all four sides by Compound Wall respondent started claiming ownership over Compound Wall on the Eastern side property respondent had also given representations to respondent this regard - – Held, Coimbatore District was already included in the Notification itself makes it very clear that if any person is aggrieved by determination of any boundary should institute a suit within a period of three years from date of Notification Section to set aside or modify determination of the boundary - This is also clear from a reading of these two provisions law in this regard is well settled and useful reference can be made to the judgment of this Court Principal Secretary reported - Proceedings of respondent merely restored original position as it prevailed even before respondent became owner of property - Civil Suit is now pending in and it substantive suit filed by petitioner against respondent seeking for relief of declaration of title and other consequential reliefs - Civil Court will have an opportunity to go into entire title of both parties through oral and documentary evidence - It goes without saying that Civil Court decide issue independently without being influenced by any of orders passed by respondents and entries made in records - Civil Court is not bound by entries made and notified Section - View of above discussion this Court has no hesitation to interfere with impugned order passed by respondent and which was further confirmed by respondent and accordingly both these orders are quashed - Records shall be restored to original position as per orders of respondent - It will be left open to parties agitate their right title and interest over property in pending Civil Suit on file of Additional District Court Coimbatore - Civil Court will independently consider claim without being influenced by any of orders passed by respondents and even orders passed in this writ petition will not have bearing while Civil Court decides suit – Petition allowed
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 1st respondent pertaining to proceedings in Na.Ka.No.512675/2019 (LS) dated 29.05.2019 confirming the order dated 10.08.2018 passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings Ne.Mu.17298/2017/E1 and quash the same as highly arbitrary and consequently direct the measurements to be restored status quo ante prior to 17.06.2015, by carrying out necessary corrections in the FMB sketch & field map relating to lands in T.S.No.1051/1 and 1054/1, Ward 10 Block 14, Krishnarayapuram Village, Coimbatore North Taluk and other revenue records maintained by the respondents.)
1. The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings dated 29.05.2019, confirming the order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings dated 10.08.2018, wherein, the order passed by the 3rd respondent dated 23.06.2017, was set aside and for a consequential direction to the respondents to restore the records as it stood prior to 17.06.2015, by making the necessary corrections.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner of the property situated in T.S.No.1051/1 and 1054/1 at Krishnarayapuram Village, Coimbatore North Taluk. According to the petitioner, the property is bounded on all four sides by Compound Wall. The 5th respondent started claiming ownership over the Compound Wall on the Eastern side property. The 5th respondent had also given representations to the 4th respondent in this regard.
3. The petitioner applied for field map Sketch and he noticed that the measurement of the Southern boundary of the subject property was corrected as follows:
| Sl.No. | T.S.No. | Original Entry | Corrected Entry |
| 1. | 1054/1 | 21 Mtrs. | 20 Mtrs. |
| 2. | 1054/2 | 68.1 Mtrs. | 69.1 Mtrs. |
4. The petitioner immediately filed a representation/appeal before the 3rd respondent requesting the 3rd respondent to rectify the correction in the records and restore it to the original position.
5. The 3rd respondent by his proceedings dated 23.06.2017, after considering the earlier records and after considering the report submitted by the Revenue Inspector, cancelled the corrections and directed the original entries to be restored. Aggrieved by the same, the 5th respondent filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent by an order dated 10.08.2018, set aside the order of the 3rd respondent and this was further confirmed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings dated 29.05.2019. Thereby, the corrections that were made in the records was confirmed by the said orders. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.
6. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the original Notification was made under Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries, Act, 1923 [hereinafter referred as “the Act”], on 22.2.2005 and if anyone is aggrieved by the same, they can only institute a suit within three years from the date of Notification to set aside or modify the determination of any boundary and only thereafter, alteration can be made in the record. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that based on the representation made by the 5th respondent, the 4th respondent has proceeded to make the corrections in the revenue records behind the back of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to make a representation to the Appellate Authority, who is the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent based on the original records and the Survey conducted on the property, restored the original entry. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that if the 5th respondent was aggrieved by the same, he should have filed a suit under Section 14 of the Act and agitated the matter and instead chose to further appeal before the 2nd respondent. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the 2nd respondent
