1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED 03.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD).No.9403 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 Karuppa Thevar ..Petitioner Vs 1.The Tashildar, Office of the Tashildar, Theni. 2.The Taluk Surveyor, Theni District. 3. Veera Chinnu (R3 is implead as per order dated 03.11.2011 made in M.P.(MD).No.3 of 2011) ..Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the notification in Na.Ka.No.6461/2011/A3 dated 13.07.2011 on the file of the 1st respondent and to quash the same. For Petitioner :Mr.K.R.Laxman For R1 & R2 :Mr.K.R.Krishnadoss Government Advocate For R3 :Mrs.A.Rajini O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition challenging a memo dated 13.07.2011 issued by the first respondent, directing the second respondent to survey the land which forms the subject matter of dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent. 2.Heard Mr.K.R.Laxman, learned counsel for the petitioner, K.R.Krishnadoss, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mrs.A.Rajini, learned counsel for the third respondent. 3.The petitioner herein first filed a writ petition in W.P.No.12975 of 2010 before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider his representation for measuring the property in Survey Nos.219/1 and 219/2 at Oonjampatti Village, Theni District. In that writ petition, the petitioner did not implead the rival claimants as parties. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner and to pass orders within a period of 8 weeks. 4.Paying the petitioner back in his own coin, the third respondent filed a writ petition without impleading the petitioner, in W.P.No.4770 of 2011. The prayer in the said writ petition was also similar in nature as made by the petitioner in his first writ petition. The writ petition W.P.No.4770 of 2011 was allowed by this Court by order dated 06.06.2001. The operative portion of the order dated 06.06.2011 passed in W.P.No.4770 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 of 2011 reads as follows: “Taking into consideration the limited request of the petitioners, the second respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 27.04.2011 after giving necessary notice as well as opportunities of hearing to Karuppa Thevar son of Chinna Mayandi Thevar and other interested parties if any, and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 5.In pursuance of the above order, the first respondent issued a communication dated 13.07.2011, directing the second respondent to survey the land. Contending that the said order was passed in violation of the order passed in W.P.No.4770 of 2011, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition. Though, the petitioner did not implead the third respondent as a party in the first instance, the third respondent has came up with an impleading petition and the same was allowed by me. Thus both rival claimants are before this Court atleast in the third round of litigation. 6.The only grievance of the writ petitioner is that the first respondent did not hold any enquiry, as directed by this Court in the order dated 06.06.2011 in W.P.No.4770 of 2011. The said contention appears to be correct on a perusal of the memo of the Tasildhar dated 13.07.2011. It is needless to point out that before undertaking the exercise of survey, the first respondent should have given an opportunity to both parties and also should have scrutinized the documents on which both parties rely. Since it was not done by the Tahsildar before actually going to the field, certain directions are required to be issued. 7.Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the first respondent, first to call upon the petitioner as well as the third respondent and others, to appear for an enquiry, on a date fixed and notified sufficiently in advance directing them to produce the documents on which they rely upon. After scrutinizing the documents produced by both sides and after affording an opportunity to both, the respondent shall take a decision whether to survey the land and demarcate the area or not. Till a decision is taken by him, the Tasildhar has no business to inspect the property and measure the land. Though, a complaint was made that the Tasildhar acted with scant respect to this Court, despite the intimation passed on to him by the learned Government Advocate, I am not now taking note of the same, in the hope that as a person, who is discharging public duties the first respondent will act in a fair and proper manner and that he would not give room for any complaint. It is also made clear that the survey, if any, done so far shall not carry any weight. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AE) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To 1.The Tashildar, Office of the Tashildar, Theni. 2.The Taluk Surveyor, Theni District. +1cc to Mr.A.Rajini, Advocate, SR.No.37827 +1cc to Mr.K.R.Laxman, Advocate, SR.No.37856 NS GH L 08.11.2011 : 3p/5c W.P.(MD).No.9403 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 03.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/