VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Madras High Court 2026 › High Court of Madras

Rajaram v. The Tahsildar

DISPOSED OF
Court
High Court of Madras
Decided
1 July 2026
Bench
S Justice S.Srimathyauthor
Case no.
WP(MD) 18501/2026

Judgment

ORDER This Writ Petition has been filed seeking the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to measure and survey the petitioner's property comprised in Survey No. 1462/1, measuring an extent of 5 acres and 5 cents, situated at R. Kombai Village, Gujiliamparai Taluk, Dindigul District, based on the petitioner's representation dated 10.06.2026.

¶2The petitioner claims title over the property comprised in Survey No. 1462/1, measuring an extent of 5 acres and 5 cents. The petitioner's father, namely, Palaniyandi, purchased the said property under Sale Deed dated 23.06.2000, registered as Document No. 427 of 2000. After the demise of Palaniyandi, the petitioner, Rajaram, along with his brothers, namely, Machchakalai, Ganeshan and Marimuthu, and his sister, Subbulakshmi, succeeded to the property and are in joint possession and enjoyment thereof. Patta No. 7227 has also been issued as a joint patta in the names of all the legal heirs. Based on the above, the petitioner has sought a survey and demarcation of the property. According to the petitioner, there is no rival claimant in respect of the property.

¶3In view of the above, the 1st respondent/Tahsildar is directed to issue notice to the petitioner, the other joint pattadars, and any other interested persons or objectors, if any, and thereafter conduct a survey and demarcation of the property in accordance with law. The Tahsildar shall verify all the relevant revenue records, title documents and connected records before undertaking the survey. If the Tahsildar considers it necessary to seek police protection for conducting the survey, the jurisdictional police shall provide adequate police protection. In the event the petitioner seeks to erect boundary stones, the same shall be carried out at the petitioner's cost. The Official Respondents shall also adhere to the following Standard Operating Procedures: a) The Official respondents shall issue notice to the petitioner immediately reaching the spot where survey is to be conducted. The petitioner shall affix the signature by receiving the notice of survey. b) After survey again the petitioner shall affix signature indicating that the survey was conducted to their satisfaction. c) If the petitioner is not satisfied, then also the petitioner shall affix signature indicating their dissatisfaction or with protest. The petitioner shall indicate that reason of their dissatisfaction or protest. The aforesaid procedure shall be strictly followed by all the parties concerned. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶4With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of . No costs.

01.07.2026 Index : Yes / No

Internet : Yes NCC : Yes / No trp TO

¶1The Tahsildar, Gujiliyamparai Taluk Office, Dindigul District..

¶2The Head Surveyor, Gujiliyamparai Taluk Office, Dindigul District. S.SRIMATHY,J trp

ORDER IN WP(MD) No.18501 of 2026 Date : 01/07/2026

Case details

Parties and counsel

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 01/07/2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY Rajaram ... Petitioner Vs 1. The Tahsildar, Gujiliyamparai Taluk Office, Dindigul District.. 2. The Head Surveyor, Gujiliyamparai Taluk Office, 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 1st and 2nd respondents herein to measure petitioners property in Survey No.1462/1 to an extent of 5 acre 5 cents at R.Kombai Village, Gujiliamparai Taluk, Dindigul District based on the petitioners representation dated 10.06.2026 and pass such other or further orders as this Honble Court. For Petitioner : Mr. G.Gomathisankar Advocate. For Respondents : Mr.I. Pinayagash, Counsel for State

Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.