SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 65351

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J
Ramachandraboopathy G – Appellant
Versus
The Tahsildar – Respondent
W.P(MD)No. 32064 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. D.S.Haroon Rasheed
For the Respondents: Mr.K.Balasubramani, Mr.S.Prakash

The court clarified the process for conducting land surveys amidst objections, focusing on title and boundary disputes.

Headnote:The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution for conducting a land survey regarding specific property. The court found no rival title claim but noted objections from other parties. Consequently, it directed the first respondent to conduct an inquiry into the survey request and consider any objections raised, specifically stating that surveys should not progress if a credible title dispute exists. The court clarified the resolution process for boundary disputes and mandated a speaking order within three months, as articulated in the order.

Table of Content
1. petitioner relies on sale deeds and requests a survey. (Para 1 , 2)
2. response from government advocates regarding the inquiry. (Para 3)
3. court directs inquiry into land survey request. (Para 4)

O R D E R

The petitioner relied on sale deeds dated 15.11.2021 and

10.02.2025 and patta Nos.630 and 806 to apply for a survey of land in survey Nos.361/2C1 of the extent of 66.53 ares and survey No.361/2B3 of an extent of 1 hectare and 21.46 ares. The present Writ Petition relates thereto.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no rival title claim, but the fourth and fifth respondents have been raising objections to the conduct of a survey.

3. Learned Special Government Pleader accepts notice for respondents 1 and 2 and learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) accepts notice for the third respondent. Learned Special Government Pleader submits that an inquiry would be conducted after issuing notice to the petitioner, the fourth and fifth respondents and owners of any other relevant adjacent lands. He also states that objections, if any, from the said persons would be taken into consideration.

4. Upon considering the above submissions, it is not necessary to issue notice to the private respondents in this Writ Petition. Instead, this Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the first respondent to conduct an inquiry in relation to the petitioner's request for a survey after issuing notice and providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, the fourth and fifth respondents and the owners of any other relevant adjacent lands. Objections, if any, of the said persons shall be taken into account. For the avoidance of doubt, it is clarified that the survey should not be conducted if there is a credible title dispute, whereas boundary disputes may be decided by the first and second respondents. At the end of the inquiry, a speaking order shall be issued within three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

NCS : Yes/No 11.11.2025 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No apd To

1. The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.

2. The Head Surveyor, Office of the Head Surveyor, Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Alwarkurichi Police Station, Alwarkurichi, Tenkasi District.

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY.,J.

apd ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No. 32064 of 2025

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top