CASE SUMMARY
In G. Gowri & A. Durai Vs Union Of India represented by Chief Secretary, Government of Puducherry & 3 Ors., W.P. Nos. 2058 & 2061 of 2023, the Madras High Court has observed that the scope of Survey and Boundaries Act cannot be expanded for the purpose of resolving the civil disputes between the parties and went on to discuss the purpose of the Act.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The Petitioners had made a representation to the Respondents to survey and demarcate lands they claimed to be theirs. Refusal to do so has led to the Writ Petition for a mandamus to direct the Respondents to survey and demarcate the lands. Civil suit for partition with respect to the property in question was pending, in which the Peititoners were not parties. The Fourth (private) Respondent had objections to surveying and demarcating the land. The Official Respondents visited the land on the appointed day but recording the objection from the Fourth Respondent, they refused to survey and demarcate the land. Only in the absence of any dispute or objection, the surveyor will be in a position to survey and measure the land.
DECISION OF THE COURT:
Relief sought under the Petitions cannot be granted. Hence Petitions dismissed.
REASONS:
- Scope of Survey and Boundaries Act cannot be expanded for the purpose of resolving civil dispute between the parties. The Act was enacted for settling boundaries and 100 years have lapsed. The boundaries are now settled and the Act is now used only for maintenance of revenue records. In the event of sub division between parties, the survey is to be conducted for the purpose of revenue records and in the event of dispute, the authority may not be in a position to resolve the dispute or conduct the survey which would cause prejudice to either parties;
- if the survey is conducted, opposite party will rely on the survey to establish his case;
- Revenue records like patta, chitta and adangal does not confer ownership over properties;
- During pendency of civil disputes, conducting survey will cause further complications;
- Any party attempting to secure revenue record cannot be encouraged during the pendency of civil suit.
- Petitioners are free to implead themselves in the pending suit.
COUNSELS:
For Petitioner: Mr. T. Sai Krishnan
For private Respondent: Mrs. P.T. Nalini Kumar
For PY Government: M. Nirmalkumar
Date of Judgment: 10.07.2023
(This is a case summary and not an opinion piece.)
Комментарии