The Madras High Court has reaffirmed the obligation of revenue authorities to act on land demarcation requests within a stipulated timeframe, directing compliance with Sections 9 and 10 of the Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923. This judgment underscores the enforceability of statutory duties through writ jurisdiction, providing a clear timeline for administrative action in property disputes.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, K. Sathish, claimed absolute ownership of Plot No. 2A in Survey No. 141/1E1A at Avaniyapuram Village, Madurai. To prevent future boundary disputes, he filed an application on 05.08.2025 before the revenue authorities seeking survey and demarcation of the land. Despite repeated requests, the respondents failed to initiate the process, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for a Writ of Mandamus.
Procedural History
The case was taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself by consent of both parties. The petitioner argued that the inaction of the revenue authorities violated their statutory duty under the Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, while the respondents assured compliance during the proceedings.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a direction to the respondents to:
- Survey and fix the boundaries of the land
- Provide a Field Measurement Book (FMB) Sketch
- Complete the process within a timeframe fixed by the Court
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether a Writ of Mandamus could be issued to compel revenue authorities to perform their statutory duty under Sections 9 and 10 of the Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 within a specified period, particularly when the authorities had failed to act on a valid application.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel contended that the respondents’ inaction amounted to a dereliction of their statutory duty. Relying on the principles laid down in State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra, the petitioner argued that mandamus is an appropriate remedy where a public authority fails to perform a mandatory duty. The petitioner further emphasized that the delay in demarcation could lead to irreparable harm, including boundary disputes and encroachments.
For the Respondents
The Special Government Pleader, representing the respondents, assured the Court that necessary steps would be taken to survey and demarcate the land in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923. The respondents did not contest the petitioner’s claim but sought time to comply with the statutory process.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the scope of Article 226 in the context of enforcing statutory duties. It noted that mandamus is a discretionary remedy, but one that must be granted where a public authority fails to perform a clear legal duty. The Court relied on State of Maharashtra v. Digambar, which held that writ jurisdiction can be invoked to direct performance of statutory duties where there is no alternative remedy.
The Court observed that Sections 9 and 10 of the Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 impose a mandatory obligation on revenue authorities to survey and demarcate land upon application. The failure to act on the petitioner’s application for over six months was deemed unreasonable, warranting judicial intervention.
"The respondents are duty-bound to consider the petitioner’s application and demarcate the property in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923. The inordinate delay in this case cannot be countenanced, and the Court must step in to ensure compliance with the law."
The Court also addressed the potential for rival claims, clarifying that while the revenue authorities must consider all claims, any disputes arising from the demarcation process would be subject to resolution before the civil courts.
The Verdict
The Court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to:
- Consider the petitioner’s application dated 05.08.2025
- Demarcate the subject property after considering any rival claims
- Pass orders in accordance with Sections 9 and 10 of the Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the order
The Court further granted liberty to the parties to approach the civil court in case of any disputes arising from the demarcation process. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Mandamus as a Tool for Enforcing Statutory Duties
This judgment reinforces the principle that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 can be effectively used to compel public authorities to perform their statutory duties. Practitioners should note:
- Mandamus is available where there is a clear legal duty and no alternative remedy
- Courts may impose a timeframe for compliance, as seen in this case
- The remedy is particularly useful in cases involving land disputes, where delays can lead to irreparable harm
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
The Court’s emphasis on adherence to Sections 9 and 10 of the Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 highlights the importance of procedural compliance. Revenue authorities must:
- Act on applications for survey and demarcation within a reasonable time
- Follow the statutory process meticulously to avoid judicial intervention
- Document all steps taken to ensure transparency and accountability
Rival Claims and Civil Remedies
The judgment clarifies that while revenue authorities must consider all claims during the demarcation process, any disputes arising therefrom must be resolved through civil courts. This distinction is crucial for practitioners:
- Revenue authorities are responsible for the technical process of demarcation
- Civil courts retain jurisdiction over disputes regarding ownership or boundaries
- Parties must be prepared to pursue civil remedies if disputes arise post-demarcation
