Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 18566
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.SURENDER, J
Ganesan – Appellant
Versus
1.The District Collector, Tenkasi District, Tenkasi. – Respondent
Writ Petition
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.M.Sankar
For the Respondents: Mr.B.Ramanathan, Mr.S.Prakash
The court emphasized the necessity for administrative bodies to act upon petitions regarding land surveys promptly, especially in cases of property ownership disputes.
Headnote:The judgment discusses the Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a Writ of Mandamus to survey the petitioner's land. The Court found that the petitioner is the absolute owner but noted that the land had been previously subdivided. The Court ordered the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation within a specified period. The petitioner seeks remedy for lack of action from the authorities regarding the land survey. The outcome directs the authorities to address the representation appropriately.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for land survey. (Para 1) |
| 2. consent for final disposal. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. ownership claim and representation. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. directive to consider representation. (Para 6) |
| 5. writ petition disposed. (Para 7) |
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing third respondent to survey the petitioner's property comprised in S.No. 316/1B, measuring an extent of 41.5 cents (Patta No.13088), situated at Sernthamangalam Village, Kadayanallur Taluk, Tenkasi District, by demarcating the boundaries and making sub-division with the help of the fourth respondent Police on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 25.10.2025.
2. By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. Since no adverse orders are going to be passed against the respondents 5 to 8, notice to the respondents 5 to 8 is hereby dispensed with.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the subject property. With a view to properly identifying the boundaries and avoiding future disputes, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 25.10.2025 before the competent revenue authorities seeking survey and demarcation of the said lands. Despite receipt of the said representation, the respondents have failed to take any action to survey and demarcate the petitioner’s lands within a reasonable time. Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court by filing the present Writ Petition seeking the relief stated supra.
5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submits that the subject property, which originally stood in the name of the petitioner and the fifth respondent/Seenithevar, had already been subdivided. It is further submitted that the petitioner is now seeking to survey the said land, which has already been subdivided, transferred in the name of the fifth respondent, and for which Patta has already been issued in his favour.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, and keeping in view that a representation has been made by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to direct disposal of the same. Accordingly, the second respondent is directed to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 25.10.2025, taking into account the background of the case, and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the respondents 5 to 8, as well as any other persons who may be affected by such decision, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
