The Madras High Court has reinforced the foundational principle of natural justice in land survey proceedings, holding that authorities cannot proceed with demarcation without affording notice and hearing to all potential claimants. This ruling clarifies the procedural obligations of revenue officers under Article 226 and sets a binding standard for property disputes involving overlapping claims.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, R. Yamini, owns two survey numbers - 50/1 (2.17 acres) and 50/2A (0.92 acres) - in Sorakayalapalli Village, Krishnagiri District. She alleges that the respondents, including the Tahsildar and Head Surveyor, have failed to act on her representation dated 4 December 2025, seeking formal survey and demarcation of her land. The respondents have not disputed her ownership but have not taken any action, leaving her property boundaries legally undefined and vulnerable to encroachment.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution after no response was received to her representation:
- 4 December 2025: Petitioner submitted formal representation to respondents 1 and 2
- No action taken: No survey initiated, no notice issued to other parties
- January 2026: Writ petition filed in Madras High Court
- No adverse orders: Respondents 3 to 10, who may have competing claims, were not previously notified
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to conduct a lawful survey and demarcation of her property within a fixed timeframe.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether revenue authorities are obligated to provide notice and opportunity of hearing to adverse claimants before conducting a survey and demarcation of disputed land, even in the absence of a formal dispute being raised at the time of application.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Mr. M. Mohamed Riyaz argued that the failure to act on the representation amounted to administrative inaction violating Article 14 and natural justice. He relied on State of U.P. v. Mohd. Noor to assert that procedural fairness is non-negotiable in land matters, especially where multiple parties may have interests. He contended that survey without notice risks perpetuating title disputes and undermines the rule of law.
For the Respondent
Mr. C. Jaya Prakash, Government Advocate, conceded that the representation remained unaddressed but argued that no formal dispute had been filed under the Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act. He maintained that survey is an administrative function and does not require adversarial hearing unless a claim is formally contested.
The Court's Analysis
The Court rejected the notion that survey is a purely administrative act immune from procedural safeguards. It emphasized that land demarcation directly affects property rights, and any determination of boundaries must respect the rights of all potential claimants, even if they have not yet filed a formal objection.
"The right to property, though no longer a fundamental right, remains a constitutional right under Article 300A, and any state action affecting it must comply with the principles of natural justice."
The Court distinguished State of Tamil Nadu v. R. Rajagopal, which dealt with routine survey of unclaimed land, noting that this case involved a petitioner with documented ownership and potential adverse claimants. It held that the absence of a prior dispute does not negate the duty to inquire. The Court further observed that survey officers must act as quasi-judicial authorities when boundaries are contested, and failure to notify interested parties renders any subsequent demarcation vulnerable to challenge.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that revenue authorities must issue notice to all potential claimants before conducting a survey, and that natural justice is mandatory in land demarcation proceedings. The respondents were directed to complete the survey within four months, after affording hearing to respondents 3 to 10 and any other interested parties.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Notice Is Mandatory Before Survey
- Practitioners must now insist on notice to all adverse claimants before any survey is initiated, even if no formal litigation exists
- Failure to serve notice renders the survey voidable under Article 226
- Revenue officers must maintain a record of notice issuance and objections received
Survey Is a Quasi-Judicial Function
- Land demarcation is not a mechanical task - it involves adjudication of competing claims
- Survey officers must record reasons for accepting or rejecting objections
- Oral hearings are not mandatory, but written submissions must be considered
Police Assistance Is Permissible but Not Discretionary
- Survey authorities may request police aid if resistance is anticipated
- Police must assist as a matter of legal duty, not convenience
- Any use of force must be proportionate and documented
