Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 35400
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.Bharatha Chakravarthy, J
Ajaykumar – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector, Theni District, Theni – Respondent
W.M.P.(MD)No.8171 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.M.Nivas Gokul
For the Respondents: Mr.M.Lingadurai Special Government Pleader for R1 to R4 & R6, Mr.K.Hemakarthikeyan for R5
Boundary disputes require civil court adjudication; writ court directs survey but refrains from injunction.
Headnote:The petitioners invoked Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus to enforce adherence to Original Field Measurement Book (FMB SR 634) boundaries, specifically the eastern boundary of 71.4 meters, and restrain road construction on their land in Town Survey No.41/3. Essential facts include allegations of wrongful encroachment without proper survey by authorities and municipality. The court found boundary disputes require civil court determination and directed survey upon application. Key issue framed as whether writ jurisdiction is appropriate for disputed boundaries absent proper survey. Ratio decidendi holds that factual boundary disputes must be resolved by competent civil courts, while administrative survey relief is available via application with fees; writ petition not suitable for trespass injunction without adjudication. Writ petition disposed directing petitioners to apply for survey with notice, granting liberty to approach civil court for boundary dispute, and permitting separate grievance on road over water body.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition disposed with survey direction and civil liberty. (Para 7 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. petitioners allege encroachment via incorrect boundaries for road. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 3. respondents deny encroachment; survey offered on application. (Para 3) |
| 4. boundary disputes for civil court; survey on fee payment. (Para 4 , 5) |
7.Paramananthan, Government Contractor, No.221/1 W2, East Street, Muthulapuram, Theni, Tamil Nadu-625 515. .. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to strictly adhere to the linear measurements and boundaries recorded in the Original Field Measurement Book (FMB SR 634) and survey records by maintaining the fixed eastern boundary of 71.4 meters as the constant, and consequently restrain the respondents from trespassing, encroaching, or proceeding with any road construction activity in he petitioners' land in Town Survey No.41/3 until a lawful demarcation is completed based on the said original FMB.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Nivas Gokul For Respondents : Mr.M.Lingadurai Special Government Pleader for R1 to R4 & R6 Mr.K.Hemakarthikeyan for R5
ORDER
The Writ Petition is filed directing the respondents to strictly adhere to the linear measurements and boundaries recorded in the Original Field Measurement Book and survey records by maintaining the fixed eastern boundary of 71.4 meters as the constant and consequently restrain the respondents from trespassing, encroaching, or proceeding with any road construction activity in the petitioners' land in S.No.41/3 until a lawful demarcation is completed based on the said original FMB and pass such further or other order.
2. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the material records of the case, the grievance of the petitioners is that without conducting a proper survey and determining the boundaries, the respondents are wrongfully trying to encroach into the petitioners' land by fixing wrong boundaries to the land while trying to lay the road. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fifth respondent would submit that already in the presence of the petitioners, a survey was conducted, but the petitioners are only insisting that the survey in respect of their entire land should be conducted. For that purpose, the petitioners asked to make a specific application by paying the fee and the same will be considered. As far as their stand is concerned, they have not encroached into the petitioners' property.
4. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.
5. If the boundary is factually disputed and if the municipality or the authority is asserting that they are not trespassing into the petitioners' property, the appropriate remedy for the petitioners would only be to approach the competent civil Court to determine the boundary and seek for such relief. As far as the limited relief of surveying the property is concerned, the respondents submit that if a proper application is made by payment of fees, the same will be done.
6. In view thereof, this Writ Petition is disposed of on the following terms:
(i) With reference to the surveying of the entire property of the petitioners, the petitioners shall make an application and by payment of the prescribed fee and the same shall be conducted as expeditiously as possible by the fourth respondent with due notice to the fifth respondent and the petitioner;
(ii) The liberty is also given to the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court if necessity arises as per law with reference to the boundary dispute.
7. At this juncture, the learned counsel would submit that the road is now being constructed on a water body. If that be so, the same is not decided in the writ petition. It will be open for the petitioners to raise that grievance in an appropriate manner. No cos
