Madras High Court
N.Vijayabaskar vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 30 August, 2023
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
W.P.No.25477 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.25477 of 2023
N.Vijayabaskar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Namakkal.
2.The Tashildar,
Rasipuram.
3. The Zonal Deputy Tashildhar,
Zone-II,
Rasipuram.
4. The Head Surveyor,
Rasipuram Taluk,
Rasipuram.
5. The Village Administrative Officer,
Kakkaveri Village,
Rasipuram Taluk. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to mutate the
revenue records in respect of the petitioner's property in S.No.203/6B1 in
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25477 of 2023
respect of the extent of the property therein as 0.05.00 ares situate at
Kakkaveri Village, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Suresh
For Respondents 1 to 5 : Mr.T.Arunkumar
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the respondents to mutate the revenue records in respect of the petitioner's property in S.No.203/6B1 to the extent of 0.05.00 ares, situated at Kakkaveri Village, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District.
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 Page 2 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25477 of 2023 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 Page 3 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25477 of 2023 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 Page 4 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25477 of 2023 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 applications are already disposed of and appeals provided under the Act has been filed, then such appeals are to be decided on merits and in consonance with the provisions of the Survey and Boundaries Act.”
3. In view of the fact that the case of the petitioner is also similar to that of the cases (cited supra), the case of the petitioner is also to be considered on the same line. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.
30.08.2023 nl/gvn Index : Yes Neutral Citation : No Speaking order Page 5 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25477 of 2023 To
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal.
2.The Tashildar, Rasipuram.
3. The Zonal Deputy Tashildhar, Zone-II, Rasipuram.
4. The Head Surveyor, Rasipuram Taluk, Rasipuram.
5. The Village Administrative Officer, Kakkaveri Village, Rasipuram Taluk.
Page 6 of 7https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25477 of 2023 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
nl/gvn W.P.No.25477 of 2023 30.08.2023 Page 7 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis