BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10.04.2024 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN W.A(MD)Nos.697 and 698 of 2024 and CMP(MD)Nos.5191 and 5192 of 2024 A.Ravichandran ... Appellant in W.A(MD)No.697/2024 A.Kannan ... Appellant in W.A(MD)No.698/2024 vs.

1. The District Collector, Madurai, Madurai District. 2. The Tahsildar, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District.

3. The Taluk Surveyor, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District.

4. The Village Administrative Officer, Kallanai Village, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District.

5. K.G.Pandiyan ... Respondents in both appeals Prayer : Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the orders dated 22.02.2024 made in W.P(MD)Nos.4199 and 4200 of 2024.

For Appellant : Mr.P.Murugesan For R1 to R4 : Mr.A.Kannan, Additional Government Pleader

COMMON JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)

These writ appeals have been directed against the orders passed by the Writ Court, dated 22.02.2024, made in W.P(MD)Nos.4199 and 4200 of

2024.

2. With regard to the property in question, it is the rival claim between the petitioner/appellant and the 5^th respondent. It is the claim of the petitioner/appellant that, the property in question belongs to him and his brother one Kannan. However, it is the claim of the 5^th respondent that, he purchased the property for a valid sale consideration, by way of a registered sale deed.

3. The said sale deed had been questioned by the petitioner/appellant and seeking a declaration against the said sale deed, the petitioner/appellant already approached the Civil Court and filed a civil suit in O.S.No.35 of 2024, on the file of the Additional District Judge at Madurai.

4. In the meanwhile, both Ravichandran and K.G.Pandian filed writ petitions before this Court in W.P(MD)Nos.10210, 12320 and 18404 of 2023, for various reliefs. Those writ petitions were disposed of, by a common order of the learned Judge, dated 31.08.2023, where, ultimately, insofar as the surveying of the land in question, to identify the four boundaries and to lay the boundary stones, direction had been given.

5. Subsequently, the present petitioner/appellant as well as his brother Kannan filed two writ petitions in W.P(MD)Nos.31364 and 31365 of 2023. Both the writ petitions were heard and disposed by a common order of another learned Judge of this Court dated 19.01.2024, where, the learned Judge, after having recorded the stand taken by the Tahsildar that, an enquiry is to be conducted, had directed the revenue authority i.e., Tahsildar, to conduct an enquiry and pass orders.

6. Pursuant to the said order passed by the Writ Court, the Tahsildar after having conducted the enquiry, passed an order on 14.02.2024, whereby, the Tahsildar has found that the Writ Court has already directed the revenue authorities to survey the land to identify the four boundaries. Even though in this context, the petitioner/appellant and his brother had filed a civil suit, where, they sought for an interlocutory order, even if that order is passed, that will not control the order passed by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, the Tahsildar decided to proceed with the surveying of the land, thereby, the objection raised by the petitioner/appellant and his brother was rejected.

7. The said order dated 14.02.2024, passed by the Tahsildar, was put under challenge in the third round of litigation by the petitioner/appellant in W.P(MD)No.4199 of 2024. While disposing the said writ petition, the learned Judge has observed that, to establish the right or seeking for any prohibitory order, it is for the petitioner/appellant to file necessary interlocutory application in the pending suit and depending upon the decision to be made, the further course of action can be decided.

8. The learned Judge also has observed that giving a direction to survey the land is only to identify the four boundaries and to lay the boundary stones, that