Porkodi v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11.07.2025

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR W.P(MD)No.17157 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.13025 and 13235 of 2025 Porkodi ... Petitioner .Vs.

1.The District Collector, Pudukottai District.

2.The Tahsildar, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukottai District.

3.The Village Administrative Officer, Rangiyam Village, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukottai District.

4.The Land Surveyor, Thirumayam Village, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukottai District.

... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified 1/6

Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned survey report,dated 24.1.2025 issued by the fourth respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the fourth respondent to conduct resurvey and earmark the four boundaries to the Petitioner's property bearing S.NO.857/11, patta No.976, to an extent of5 cents in Rangiyam Village, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukottai District in the light of the order passed in W.P(MD)No.1061 of 2023, dated 20.1.2023.

For Petitioner : Mr.Mahamed Hussain For Respondents : Mrs.S.Jeya Priya 1 to 4 Govt. Advocate

O R D E R

The Writ Petition is filed challenging the alleged survey report uploaded in the online portal on the ground that what is uploaded is not the proper survey report but a statement. 2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court. 3.The Petitioner's son submitted an application seeking survey of the property situated in S.No.857/11 in Rangiyam Village, Pudukkottai District. A reading of the writ affidavit would show that the Petitioner's main grievance is that the survey report has not been furnished to the Petitioner's son. In 2/6

fact, the subject property belongs to the Petitioner's son. Application for survey was made by the Petitioner's son and Writ Petitioner is not interested or has any cause of action to maintain the Writ Petition.

4.When the Writ Petition came up for hearing today, the learned Government Advocate appearing for he respondents 1 to 4 was directed to produce the survey report in S.No.857/11.The impugned survey report, on the face of it, is only a statement made by the Petitioner acknowledging the survey of the property in her presence. When the discrepancies in the signature found in the impugned order and the signature found in the writ affidavit are pointed out, the learned counsel for the Petitioner fairly contended that the signature found in the impugned order is that of Petitioner's son. Therefore it is clear that the subject property has been surveyed in the presence of the Petitioner's son, who is the owner of the property. The copy of the survey report is produced before this Court by the learned Government Advocate.

Copy of the same is also served to the learned counsel for the Petitioner. Therefore, the main grievance of the Petitioner that survey report has not been furnished to her son has been addressed.

known to law.

5.With the above observation, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

11.07.2025 NCS : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No vsn To 1.The District Collector, Pudukottai District.

2.The Tahsildar, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukottai District.

3.The Village Administrative Officer, Rangiyam Village, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukottai District.

4.The Land Surveyor, Thirumayam Village, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukottai District.

4/6

S.SOUNTHAR.,J.

vsn ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.17157 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.13025 and 13235 of 2025 5/6

11.07.2025 6/6