Madras High Court
The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs P.Gurusamy( Rtd. Ssi) on 6 April, 2026
REV APLN(MD).No.113, 114 of 2025 and WP(MD).No.9405 and 25910 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 06/04/2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
REV APLN(MD).Nos.113, 114 of 2025 in
WP(MD).Nos.3917 and 3840 of 2025 and
WP(MD).No.9405 and 25910 of 2025 and
WMP(MD).Nos.15853 and 15854, 15685, 15686 and 7037 of 2025
Ashok ... Petitioner in
REV APLN(MD).Nos.113, 114 of 2025 and
WP(MD).No.9405 and 25910 of 2025
Vs
1.Anbarasu
2.The Tahsildar,
Uthamapalayam Taluk,
Theni District.
3.Jothibasu
4.Loganathan
5.Suresh Babu
6. Manoj ... Respondents in Rev Apl.No.113 of 2025
1.Sathik Ali
2.The Tahsildar,
Uthamapalayam Taluk,
Theni District.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
REV APLN(MD).No.113, 114 of 2025 and WP(MD).No.9405 and 25910 of 2025
3.Jothibasu
4.Loganathan
5.Suresh Babu
6. Manoj ... Respondents in Rev Apl.No.114 of 2025
1. The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Theni District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Revenue Divisional Office,
Uthamapalayam,
Theni District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Uthamapalaym Taluk,
Theni District.
4.The Head Surveyor,
Uthamapalayam Taluk,
Theni District.
5.Anbarasu
6. Sathik Ali Respondents in WP(MD).No.9405/25
WP(MD).No. 25910 of 2025
1. S.Jothi Basu
2. S.Loganathan
3. K.V.Suresh Babu
4. S.Ashok
5. A.Manoj ... Petitioners
Vs
1. The Tahsildar,,
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
REV APLN(MD).No.113, 114 of 2025 and WP(MD).No.9405 and 25910 of 2025
Uthamapalayam Taluk,
Theni District.
2. The Head Surveyor,,
Uthamapalayam Taluk,
Theni District..
3. Anbarasu
4. Sathik Ali ... Respondents
PRAYER in Review Applications:- Review Applications filed under
Order 47 Rule 1 r/w. Section 114 of CPC against the Judgment dated
14.02.2025 and 13.02.2025 respectively passed by this Court in
WP(MD).No.3840 nd 3917 of 2025 on the file of this Court.
PRAYER in WP(MD).No.9405 of 2025:- Writ Petition filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a
Writ of Mandamus directing the 3 and 4 Respondents herein to rectify
the mistakes in the filed measurement book and restore the same in its
original position with respect to survey No.665 in Cumbum Village,
Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District by considering petitioners
representation dated 23.12.2024, 10.03.2025 and 24.03.2025 within a
time stipulated by this Court.
PRAYER in WP(MD)No.25910 of 2025:- Writ Petition filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a
Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st and 2nd respondents herein to
consider the petitioners representation dated 28.08.2025 in the light of
proceedings/report of the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.S/0261/2025 dated
31.07.2025 and pass appropriate orders for rectification of Field
Measurement Book (FMB) of S.No.665/2A measuring to an extent of 66
cents in Cumbum Village, Theni District within the time stipulated by
this Court.
For petitioner in Review Applications : Mr.V. Meenakshi Sundaram
3/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
REV APLN(MD).No.113, 114 of 2025 and WP(MD).No.9405 and 25910 of 2025
and WP(MD).Nos.9405 and 25910 of 2025
For 2nd Respondent in both review applications
: Mr.K.S. Selvaganesan
Additional Government Pleader
For petitioner in both W.P(MD).Nos.3917 and
and 3040 of 2025 : Mr. S. Ramanathan
For respondents 1 to 4 in WP(MD).No.9405 of 2025
and for respondents 1 and 2 in W.P(MD).No.25010 of 2025
: Mr. K.S. Selvganesan
Additional Government Pleader
COMMON ORDER
Review Applications and Writ Petitions are taken up together with the consent of the counsel on both sides.
2. Heard Mr. V. Meenakshisundaram, learned counsel appearing for the review applicant in Review Application (MD) Nos. 113 and 114 of 2025 and for the writ petitioners in W.P. (MD) Nos. 9405 and 25910 of 2025, as well as the counsel for the petitioners in W.P. (MD) Nos.
3840 of 2025 and 3917 of 2025, and Mr. K.S. Selvaganesan, learned 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis REV APLN(MD).No.113, 114 of 2025 and WP(MD).No.9405 and 25910 of 2025 Additional Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents.
3. The grievance of the review applicant / writ petitioners in the latter two writ petitions is that the original Field Measurement Book (FMB) pertaining to S.No. 665 clearly depicted the extent of 33 metres on the northern side of S.No. 665. Similarly, reliance is placed on the FMB available for both S.Nos. 665 and 666. However, Mr. V. Meenakshisundaram, learned counsel, has invited my attention to the FMB issued by the Village Administrative Officer in the year 2024, wherein the extent of 33 metres has been corrected to 23 metres as the northern boundary of S.No. 665. According to the petitioners, this correction is not authenticated, and no procedure was followed before carrying out such correction in the FMB records. Equally, the petitioners were not put on notice. The writ petitioner in the original writ petitions has purchased an extent in S.No. 665 and claimed a certificate based on the said purchase. The writ petitions in W.P. (MD) No. 3917 of 2025 and connected matters were ordered, directing the official respondents to invite objections from the review applicants as well and to conduct a survey based on the petitioners’ application.
5/10https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis REV APLN(MD).No.113, 114 of 2025 and WP(MD).No.9405 and 25910 of 2025
4. The grievance of the review applicant / writ petitioners in the second set of writ petitions is that, if the survey is conducted as per the revised FMB, it would not be proper, since the original northern boundary of S.No.665 is 33 metres and not 23 metres, and there is no valid proceeding by which the extent was reduced to 23 metres. It is therefore the contention of the review applicants / writ petitioners that, if the survey is based on the modified extent of 23 metres, it would be an exercise in futility.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners in the original writ petitions would fairly submit that the writ petitioners have no objection to the FMB being corrected and a survey being conducted thereafter. According to them, the petitioners only seek identification of their lands purchased by registered sale deeds in S.No. 665.
6. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis REV APLN(MD).No.113, 114 of 2025 and WP(MD).No.9405 and 25910 of 2025 authorities would submit that the authorities are willing to abide by any order passed by this Court and that no survey has been conducted pursuant to the orders in the earlier writ petitions.
7. I find force in the submissions of the review applicant / writ petitioners in the second set of writ petitions that, if the survey is conducted based on the corrected FMB for S.No. 665, serious prejudice would be caused to them, as they have purchased properties based on the original extent showing the northern boundary as 33 metres. There is no explanation on the side of the official respondents as to how the extent was reduced to 23 metres in the revised FMB issued by the Village Administrative Officer, Cumbum, in December 2024. However, in view of the fair concession made by the writ petitioners in the original writ petitions that the FMB can be restored to the original extent of 33 metres on the northern side of S.No. 665 and that a survey can thereafter be conducted, the interests of all parties would be sufficiently protected.
8. In the light of the above, the orders passed in W.P. (MD) Nos.
7/10https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis REV APLN(MD).No.113, 114 of 2025 and WP(MD).No.9405 and 25910 of 2025 3840 and 3917 of 2025 are recalled and the following order is passed in all the four writ petitions:
(i) The Tahsildar shall carry out necessary corrections in the FMB of S.No. 665 and restore the original position showing 33 metres as the northern boundary of S.No.665. After carrying out such corrections, the Tahsildar, shall fix a date for inspection and issue notice to the parties to the present writ petitions (both sets). In the presence of the parties, the survey shall be conducted, in the presence of the Head Surveyor and the applications of the writ petitioners in W.P. (MD) Nos. 3840 and 3917 of 2025 shall be disposed of.
(ii) The original writ petitioners are power agents of the original landowners from whom the review applicants have subsequently purchased the properties. Therefore, after the survey is conducted in the manner indicated above, if any of the parties are aggrieved by the survey, it is open to them to challenge the survey proceedings in the manner known to law.
9. In view of above all the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs.
8/10https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis REV APLN(MD).No.113, 114 of 2025 and WP(MD).No.9405 and 25910 of 2025 Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
06.04.2026 TRP Index : yes / No Internet : Yes / No To
1. The District Collector, Collectorate, Theni District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Uthamapalayam, Theni District.
3.The Tahsildar, Uthamapalaym Taluk, Theni District.
4.The Head Surveyor, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District.
P.B. BALAJI, J., 9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis REV APLN(MD).No.113, 114 of 2025 and WP(MD).No.9405 and 25910 of 2025 trp REV APLN(MD).Nos.113, 114 of 2025 in WP(MD).Nos.3917 and 3840 of 2025 and WP(MD).No.9405 and 25910 of 2025 and WMP(MD).Nos.15853 and 15854, 15685, 15686 and 7037 of 2025 06.04.2026 10/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis