Shanthi. C v. The Tahsildar

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01.08.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN C.Shanthi ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Tahsildar, Kodaikanal Taluk Office, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District.

2.The Head Surveyor, Kodaikanal Taluk Office, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District.

... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to conduct survey and to fix the boundary stones of property of petitioner comprised in Old S.No.87, Part, T.S.No.23, C-Ward, Block No.10, Kodaikanal Town and Taluk Dindigul District submitted through online application dated 17.06.2024 within the time stipulated by this Court. 1/4

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Gangai Amaran For Respondents : Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh, Addl. Government Pleader.

Mr.Mahaboob Athiff for Intervenor Mr.T.Cibichkarabarthy for Intervenor

ORDER

C.Shanthi, W/o.K.Chandrasekhar has filed this writ petition for directing the respondents to conduct survey and fix the boundary stones of the petition mentioned property.

2.Whenever it is submitted that the applicant is having patta in his / her favour, this Court would dispose of such writ petitions by issuing certain standard directions. In this case also, patta has also been enclosed in the typed set of papers. I would have disposed of the matter in normal course but for the timely intervention of the learned counsel for the intervenors. They pointed out that patta in respect of the petition mentioned property actually stands in the name of the vendor of Lizamma Uramese. In fact, patta enclosed in the typed set of papers does not tally with the description of the petition mentioned property. My attention is drawn to the order passed by this Court on 25.07.2024 in W.P.(MD)No.13414 of 2024. The petitioner herein had been 2/4

virtually castigated as fraudulent by this Court on more than one occasion. The petitioner has attempted to play fraud on this Court. Not only the petition deserves to be dismissed, the petitioner also should be levied with exemplary cost. Since the petitioner's counsel pleased leniency, I refrain from doing so. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

01.08.2024 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias To:- 1.The Tahsildar, Kodaikanal Taluk Office, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District.

2.The Head Surveyor, Kodaikanal Taluk Office, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District.

3/4

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

ias 01.08.2024 4/4