2023:MHC:3272 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 12.07.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.No.20567 of 2023 Ellappan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Chief Surveyor, Tahsildar Office, Arcot Taluk, Ranipet District.

2.The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Commissionerate of Survey and Settlement, Ranipet District. 3.The Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Arcot Taluk, Ranipet District.

4.Devagi

5.Sampath 6.Dharani

7.Sekar

8.Kanniyappan

9.Nagappan

10.Sankar

11.Karpagam ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent to measure the petitioner's property comprised in S.No.214/38 situated at Naiken Thoppu Village, Arcot Taluk, Ranipet District by metes and bounds on the basis of the application dated 03.06.2023.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sasi Kumar For R1 to R3 : Mr.C.Jaya Prakash Government Advocate

O R D E R

The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the 1^st respondent to measure the petitioner's property comprised in S.No.214/38 situated at Naiken Thoppu Village, Arcot Taluk, Ranipet District by metes and bounds on the basis of the application dated 03.06.2023.

2. The issues raised in the present writ petition were adjudicated by this Court in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.37519 of 2016 [S.Sakkarai Vs. The Tashildhar, Dharmapuri District] etc., and batch, and a judgment was delivered on 19.06.2023 and the relevant paragraphs of the judgment are extracted hereunder:

“36. Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure unambiguously contemplates that “The Courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred”.

37. Therefore, a special enactment has no relevance with reference to a right of the parties to approach the competent Civil Court of law to resolve all nature of civil disputes including boundary dispute, survey dispute, title dispute, ownership or otherwise. Therefore, neither the parties nor the authorities need to create an impression that in the event of boundary dispute, the parties have to approach the authorities at the first instance. It is not required that the aggrieved persons, in the event of boundary dispute has to approach the authorities for fixing the boundary, they are at liberty to approach the Civil Court of law under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is unambiguous in this regard.

38. Submitting an application for fixing boundary is an option available to the aggrieved persons. Once an application is filed, whether the application is entertainable under the provisions of the Act is to be determined by the authorities and only if it is falling within the ambit of the Act, then alone the survey or fixing of boundary is to be undertaken. Even in this case, the authorities are bound to relegate the parties to the competent Civil Court of law under Section 14 of the Act.

39. It is contended by the petitioner that the authorities are making certain findings regarding the title, ownership in their order, while rejecting the applications. Such findings made by the authorities either in the patta proceedings or in the proceedings under the Survey and Boundaries Act are restricted and to be understood only for the purpose of arriving a conclusion under the provisions of the Act and the said patta proceedings or the proceedings under the Survey and Boundaries Act would not confer any title or be taken as a conclusive decision, more specifically under Section 35 of the Evidence Act.

40. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to consider the representations / applications submitted by the petitioners in the order of seniority and by following the procedures as contemplated under the Governmental orders and in consonance with the provisions of the Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law. Wherever the applicatio