P.Sarojini vs the Tahsildar

P.Sarojini vs The Tahsildar

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Apr 30, 2025

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1917340

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1917340
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr Justice N. Anand Venkatesh
Decided On: Apr 30, 2025
Case Number: WP/16214/2025

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

P.Sarojini

Respondent

The Tahsildar

Excerpt

.....of boundaries.2. heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned additional government pleader for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned government advocate for the fourth respondent.3. the petitioner is the auction purchaser and the auction wasconducted by the third respondent. the third respondent has submitted an application before the respondents 1 and 2 seeking for survey of the subject property and for demarcation of the boundaries. when the survey was sought to be conducted, it was interfered by the fifth respondent and hence, no survey was conducted. it is under these circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed before this court.4. taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of thecase and considering the materials placed before this court, there shall be a direction to the first respondent to act upon the application submitted by the third respondent and conduct survey in the subject property, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. if at all the fifth respondent has any grievance, he has to work out his remedy before the competent court and he cannot stop the revenue authorities from conducting the survey. if required, the fourth respondent shall also provide police protection.n.anand venkatesh, j mk the writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. there shall be no order as to costs. 30.04.2025 neutral citation: yes/no index: yes/nospeaking order/non-speaking ordermk to sulur taluk, sulur, coimbatore. 3.the inspector of police

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH P.Sarojini W/o.Ponnusamy, No.100, Cross 2 P.M.Samy Colony, Coimbatore North, Coimbatore- 641 027. Petitioner Vs Sulur Taluk, Sulur, Coimbatore Coimbatore District 3.The Karnataka Bank Limited, Rep by its Authorised Officer Ramanathapuram Branch, 1114-c, Ground Floor, SAC Chambers, Trichy Road, Ramanathapuram, Coimbatore- 641 045. 4.The Inspector Of Police 5.E.Ramachandran
S/o.Eswaraorthy, No.66/1, B-2, Door No.99/6, Navithan Kaadu Thottam, Kadampadi Post, Sulur Road, Segathurai, Coimbatore - 641 401. Respondent(s) Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first and second respondents to survey the property in S.F. No. 66/1B2A, subdivide and demarcate 42 cents with RCC building as per settlement deed dated 06.05.2015 vide document No.4712 of 2015 on the file of SRO, Sulur with the assistance of the fourth respondent as requested by the third respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Magesh For Respondents : Mr.P.Sathish Additional Government Pleader for R1 and R2 Mr.Meganathan Government Advocate for R4 *****

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to act upon the application submitted by the third respondent seeking for survey of the subject property and for demarcation of boundaries.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Advocate for the fourth respondent.

3. The petitioner is the auction purchaser and the auction was

conducted by the third respondent. The third respondent has submitted an application before the respondents 1 and 2 seeking for survey of the subject property and for demarcation of the boundaries. When the survey was sought to be conducted, it was interfered by the fifth respondent and hence, no survey was conducted. It is under these circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

4. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the

case and considering the materials placed before this Court, there shall be a direction to the first respondent to act upon the application submitted by the third respondent and conduct survey in the subject property, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If at all the fifth respondent has any grievance, he has to work out his remedy before the competent Court and he cannot stop the revenue authorities from conducting the survey. If required, the fourth respondent shall also provide police protection.

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J mk The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. 30.04.2025 Neutral Citation: Yes/No Index: Yes/no

Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order

mk To Sulur Taluk, Sulur, Coimbatore. 3.The Inspector Of Police

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2025 Same Parties P.Sarojini vs The Tahsildar Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice N. Anand Venkatesh