The Madras High Court has reaffirmed that administrative action involving property rights must adhere to principles of natural justice, even in routine land survey matters. A writ of mandamus is not a tool for immediate enforcement but a mechanism to compel lawful procedure.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Sengottaiyan, claimed ownership of a parcel of land in Chinna Salem Taluk, Kallakurichi District, and submitted a representation on 17 December 2025 requesting the Tahsildhar to survey and demarcate its boundaries. Despite the passage of over a month, no action was taken, prompting the petitioner to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Procedural History
- 17 December 2025: Petitioner submitted formal representation to the Tahsildhar seeking land survey and demarcation
- No response received: No acknowledgment, inquiry, or action taken by the revenue authority
- January 2026: Writ petition filed in the Madras High Court seeking a direction to act
- 22 January 2026: Court heard arguments and disposed of the petition with specific directions
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus compelling the Tahsildhar to conduct a lawful survey and demarcation of the property without undue delay.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a writ of mandamus under Article 226 can be granted to compel a revenue officer to perform a statutory duty, and if so, what procedural safeguards must accompany such action to ensure fairness.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. W. Camyles Gandhi, argued that the Tahsildhar’s inaction amounted to a failure to discharge a mandatory statutory duty under the Tamil Nadu Land Revenue Code. He contended that the petitioner’s claim was supported by documentary evidence and that delay in surveying land rights violated the right to property under Article 300A and the principle of natural justice. He relied on State of U.P. v. Mohammad Noor to assert that mandamus lies where a public authority refuses to perform a clear legal duty.
For the Respondent
The Government Advocate, Mr. R.P. Murugan Raja, accepted notice on behalf of the Tahsildhar but did not contest the petitioner’s entitlement to relief. He acknowledged that the representation remained unaddressed and conceded that the matter required procedural compliance, including notice to adjacent landowners.
The Court's Analysis
The Court emphasized that while mandamus is an appropriate remedy to enforce public duties, it cannot be used to bypass established procedural norms. The Tahsildhar, as a statutory officer, is bound to follow due process before demarcating boundaries, particularly where adjacent land rights may be affected.
"No prejudice will be caused to the respondent, if the aforesaid representation of the petitioner is considered, on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing objections if any from the neighbouring land owners as well as any other party whom the respondent deems fit to enquire."
The Court held that procedural fairness is not optional in land demarcation matters. Even if the petitioner’s claim appears prima facie valid, the Tahsildhar must afford an opportunity to all potentially affected parties. This ensures that the survey is not only legally sound but also socially legitimate. The Court rejected any notion that urgency justifies skipping notice, noting that natural justice applies even in administrative proceedings. The 12-week timeline was imposed to balance the petitioner’s right to timely redress with the state’s obligation to conduct a fair inquiry.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Madras High Court held that the Tahsildhar must issue notice to neighboring landowners and other interested parties before conducting a survey, and must complete the demarcation within 12 weeks of receiving a copy of the order. The Court also permitted police assistance if required, affirming that administrative action must be both lawful and procedurally just.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Notice to Neighbors Is Mandatory
- Practitioners must now insist on proof of notice issuance in all land demarcation disputes
- Failure to serve notice renders any survey or order vulnerable to challenge under Article 14 and Article 21
- Revenue authorities cannot rely on internal records alone to establish due process
Mandamus Is Procedural, Not Substantive
- Courts will not direct outcomes but will compel adherence to fair procedure
- Petitioners must frame relief as a direction to follow process, not to grant ownership
- This judgment reinforces that mandamus cannot substitute administrative discretion - it only ensures it is exercised lawfully
Police Assistance Is Ancillary, Not Primary
- Requests for police aid must be formally made by the revenue officer, not the petitioner
- Police presence is limited to maintaining order during survey, not enforcing land rights
- Any use of police to intimidate or coerce parties during demarcation will be treated as abuse of power
