Arjunan. M v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 15.07.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR M.Arjunan ...

Petitioner Vs 1 The District Collector, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.

2 The Tahsildar, Manamelkudi Taluk, Manamelkudi, Pudukkottai District.

3 The Taluk Surveyor, Manamelkudi Taluk, Manamelkudi, Pudukkottai District.

...

Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 2 and 3 to re-survey the petitioner's property in S.No.183/7C to an extent of 0.08.5 Ares situated at Mumpalai Revenue Village, North Ammapattinam Village, Manamelkudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District, on the basis of the petitioner's representation, dated 21.03.2023.

For Petitioner :

Mr.B.Anandan For Respondents : Mrs.S.Jeya Priya, Govt. Advocate.

ORDER

The Writ Petition is filed, seeking a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to re-survey the petitioner's property situated in Survey No.183/7C, Mumpalai Revenue Village, North Ammapattinam Village, Manamelkudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District, by considering his representation, dated 21.03.2023.

2. It is seen from the typed set of papers, earlier, the petitioner filed a writ petition, seeking survey of the very same property in W.P.(MD) No. 16231 of 2022. The said writ petition was disposed of, with a direction to the respondent to survey the property on certain conditions, by conducting enquiry. Based on the said direction, the second respondent passed an order in proceedings in Na.Ka.S/4976/2022, dated 26.02.2023, negativing the request of the petitioner to survey the property, and relegating him to work out his remedy before the civil court. The second respondent, in his order, clearly stated that the boundaries mentioned in the title document of the petitioner tally with the boundaries of some other survey number, namely, 183/2 and

hence, the request of the petitioner for surveying the property in Survey No. 183/7C could not be accepted. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the second respondent in the enquiry, it is for him to challenge the same in the manner known to law. However, the petitioner filed this writ petition, seeking survey of the property again, without challenging the order passed by the second respondent, negativing the request of the petitioner to survey the property. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to maintain this writ petition.

3. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order passed by the second respondent in the manner known to law, if he is so advised. No costs. 15.07.2025 NCC :

Yes / No Index :

Yes / No Internet :

Yes / No dixit To:

1 The District Collector, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.

2 The Tahsildar, Manamelkudi Taluk, Manamelkudi, Pudukkottai District.

3 The Taluk Surveyor, Manamelkudi Taluk, Manamelkudi, Pudukkottai District.

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

dixit 15.07.2025