1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P.(MD).No.2437 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).No. 1 of 2011 Muthabaranam : Petitioner Vs 1. The District Collector Madurai District Madurai – 20 2. The Thashildar Melur Taluk, Melur Madurai District 3. The Taluk Surveyor Melur Taluk Office Madurai District 4. Karuppiah 5. Santhi : Respondents (Respondents 4 & 5 impleaded as party Respondent vide Court order dt.made in MP(MD)1/2011 in WP(MD)No.247/2011) PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 30.08.2010 within a stipulated period. For petitioner : Mr.J.Gunasheelanmuthiah For RR 1 to 3 : Mr.K.Balasubramanian Additional Government Pleader For RR 4 & 5 : Mr.S.Subbiah O R D E R The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition seeking to direct the second respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 30.08.2010 within a stipulated period. 2. The petitioner originally filed a suit for declaration and injunction, that was dismissed, on 20.06.1996, directing both parties to approach the Thashildar, Melur, to identify their properties on the grounds submitted by them. As against the dismissal order, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 petitioner has preferred First Appeal in A.S.No. 17 of 1997 before the 1st Additional Sub Judge, Madurai and the First Appellate Court set aside the Trial Court order and decreed the suit, on 31.08.1998. As against the same, the respondents 4 & 5 has preferred a Second Appeal in S.A.No. 1621 of 2000 before this Court. By an order dated 25.01.2008, this Court allowed the Appeal and confirmed the order of the Trial Court. At that point of time, the observation regarding both the parties to approach before the Thashildar, Melur, has not been deleted by the Second Appellate Court, but only confirmed the order of the Trial Court. Thereafter, the petitioner has approached the first respondent as per the direction of this Court and submitted a Petition on 28.04.2008 to survey the property and he has also paid the necessary amount by virtue of his Petition. His only grievance is that even after a period of three years no survey has been conducted and no notice has been issued. Hence, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that it is a property dispute and in any view of the matter, they are always ready and willing to participate in respect of the survey to conduct for identification of their properties. 4. On instructions, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 & 5 entered appearance. Their only grievance is that the matter has already been decided by the Second Appeal in civil matter and therefore, by virtue of filing this Petition for re-survey they are trying to re-open the matter and conduct the survey to identify their properties. 5. Heard all the parties. 6. At the outset, it is pertinent to point out here that the matter relating to the ownership of the property was dealt in detail before the Civil Court up to the Second Appeal stage. It is very clear that as against the order of the First Appellate Court, the respondents 4 & 5 has preferred a Second Appeal in S.A.No. 1621 of 2000 before this Court. By an order dated 25.01.2008, this Court allowed the Appeal and confirmed the order of the Trial Court of dismissing the suit. But in doing so, the Second Appellate Court did not cancel the observation that the plaintiff in the suit (the petitioner herein) has got liberty to seek appropriate remedy by taking future action. No doubt, so far the declaration and injunction of the suit filed by the petitioner has been dismissed vesting the title with the respondent. Therefore, the petitioner has now only sought for a survey of the property and demarcation of the property to identify his property. But under the guise of identifying the property, he can not seeks to re-open the title dispute already settled by the Judgment of this Hon'ble Court, as it will affect the right of the respondents 4 & 5. in this Writ, he https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 only seeks to consider his representation, dated 30.08.2010. 7. It is made clear that any survey of the property on the petitioner's representation, dated 30.08.2010, should be made only after giving notice to the respondents 4 & 5 and in presence of all the parties. Taking into consideration of the fact that the application of the petitioner is kept pending for the past three years, it is made very clear that the civil Court Judgement has to be taken into account by the authorities concerned shall pass orders on the representation, dated 30.08.2010 within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. With the above said direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The District Collector Madurai District Madurai – 20 2. The Thashildar Melur Taluk, Melur Madurai District 3. The Taluk Surveyor Melur Taluk Office Madurai District +1cc to M/S.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah, Advocate, Sr.No.8166 +1cc to Mr.S.Subbiah, Advocate, Sr.No.8220 +one cc to Special Government Pleader, Sr.No. 8335 W.P.(MD).No.2437 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).No. 1 of 2011 25.03.2011 vsg SMA/18.04.2011/7C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/