logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 1482 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : WP No. 2931 of 2026 & WMP No. 3278 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
Parties : E. Giri Versus The District collector, Collectorate, Tiruvallur & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: M. Raja, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 to R4, S. Arumugam, Govt Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 03-02-2026
Head Note :-
Subject
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:


2. Catch Words:
- Writ Petition
- Survey
- Demarcation of Boundaries
- Civil Suit
- Injunction

3. Summary:
The petitioner sought a writ directing respondents No. 1‑4 to refrain from surveying and demarcating a parcel of land pending a civil suit (O.S. No. 165 of 2008). The court held that any objection to the survey must be raised before respondents No. 3 and 4, not through a writ petition, and that the petitioner’s request cannot pre‑empt the pending civil suit. The government advocate accepted notice for respondents No. 1‑4, while notice to respondents No. 5‑6 was dispensed with. The court clarified it would not opine on the merits of the objection but directed respondents No. 3‑4 to consider the petitioner’s representation on merits before proceeding with the survey as per respondents No. 5‑6’s application. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with no costs, and the related miscellaneous petition was closed.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Directing the respondents No.1 to 4 not to conduct the survey or measurement of the land survey No.320/1B measuring an extent of Acre 2.54 cents situated at Kannapalayam Village, Poonamallee Taluk, Tiruvallur District till the disposal of the suit in O.S. No.165 of 2008 on the file of Principle District Munsif Court, Poonamallee)

1. This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 to 4 not to conduct survey for the property morefully described in the prayer to this writ petition.

2. According to the petitioner, since a Civil Suit is pending, the respondents 1 to 4 should not conduct survey and demarcation of boundaries as prayed for by the private respondents viz., the respondents 5 and 6.

3. Any objection with regard to the survey and demarcation of boundaries can if at all be raised only before the respondents 3 and 4 by the petitioner. The petitioner cannot directly file this writ petition to forebear the respondents 1 to 4 from conducting survey and demarcation of boundaries based on the request made by the respondents 5 and 6 by stating the reasons, which includes the pendency of the Civil Suit.

4. Mr. S.Arumugam, learned Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4. Since no adverse orders are passed against the respondents 5 and 6, notice to the respondents 5 and 6 is dispensed with by this Court.

5. This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s representation / objection. However, necessarily, the respondents 3 and 4 will have to consider the petitioner’s representation / objection on merits and in accordance with law and only after giving due consideration to the same, survey and demarcate the boundaries of the property morefully described in the prayer to this writ petition based on the application submitted by the respondents 5 and 6.

6. The only limited relief that can be granted by this Court in this writ petition is to direct the respondents 3 and 4 to consider the petitioner’s representation / objection dated 15.12.2025, objecting to the survey and demarcation of boundaries, on merits and in accordance with law and thereafter, proceed to survey and demarcate the boundaries of the property morefully described in the prayer to this writ petition based on the application submitted by the respondents 5 and 6.

7. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal