2023:MHC:3292 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 14.07.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.No.20830 of 2023 G.Pachiyappan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Collector, District Collector Office, Thiruvannamalai, Thiruvannamalai District.

2.The Thasildar, Arani Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District.

3.The Taluk Surveyor, Office of the Taluk Office, Arani Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3^rd respondent to conduct a field Survey No.221/6A admeasuring to an extent 0-26.50 Hectare, Survey No.318/3B admeasuring to an extent 0-11.00 Hectare, Survey No.320/5C admeasuring to an extent 0-23.50 Hectare, Survey No.318/1F admeasuring to an extent 0-14.50 Hectare, Survey No.317/7 admeasuring to an extent

0.22.50 Hectare, Survey No.225/5B, Survey No.223/6B admeasuring to an extent 0-4.50, Survey No.270/16A admeasuring to an extent 0-4.00 on dated 13.07.2022 and Survey No.305/7B dated 08.03.2023 situated at Vinnamangalam Village, Arani Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District, by considering the petitioner representation dated 13.07.2022 and 08.03.2023.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Balamurugan For R1 to R3 : Mr.G.Krishna Raja Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the 3^rd respondent to conduct a field Survey No.221/6A admeasuring to an extent 0- 26.50 Hectare, Survey No.318/3B admeasuring to an extent 0-11.00 Hectare, Survey No.320/5C admeasuring to an extent 0-23.50 Hectare, Survey No.318/1F admeasuring to an extent 0-14.50 Hectare, Survey No.317/7 admeasuring to an extent 0.22.50 Hectare, Survey No.225/5B, Survey No.223/6B admeasuring to an extent 0-4.50, Survey No.270/16A admeasuring to an extent 0-4.00 dated 13.07.2022 and Survey No.305/7B dated 08.03.2023 situated at Vinnamangalam Village, Arani Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District, by considering the petitioner's representation dated

13.07.2022 and 08.03.2023.

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 th