Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1180 (MAD)

A. Kathiravan v. District Survey Officer

2012-03-05

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the natuer of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to survey measure, and mark the boundaries of the schedule property in accordance with law, as requested vide representation dated 16.08.2011 and further to direct the 2nd respondent to give appropriate protection, if so required by the 1st respondent in carrying out the survey and measurement. 2. It is submitted by the petitioner that immovable property to the extent of 10 acres 92 cents, as fully described in the schedule, is possessed by petitioner, in pursuance to the deed of release executed on 27.11.2009, by Manickam and others. That while petitioner was enjoying the property peacefully, as owner thereof and was also issued computer generated patta, by the Tahsildar Officer, Ambattur, Venkatasamy Naidu, Arumugam, Rajan, Babu and Rasi Begum started interfering in the possession and enjoyment of the property of petitioner, which forced the petitioner to file civil suit. 3. The prayer made in the civil suit, reads as under: "Permanent injunction to restrain the defendants their men, agents, representatives or any one acting under them in any way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff in S.No.355/2, 355/1A1A1 and 355/2A1A1A corresponding phamash numbers 21/92 and 21/93 to an extent of 10 acres 92 cents Vellanur Village, Morai Firka, Ambattur Taluk." The petitioner also prayed for grant of interim injunction in the suit, and interim injunction is also granted in favour of petitioner. 4. The case of petitioner is that defendants in the suit have started interfering with the possession of petitioner in raising of fencing, therefore, it has become necessary for the petitioner to get the property surveyed. 5. Subsequent to the filing of writ petition, private respondents have been impleaded as party. However, no specific averments have been made. 6. Once the civil suit filed by petitioner is pending, in which, injunction stands granted in favour of petitioner, as pleaded, the remedy with the petitioner is to prosecute the respondents for violating injunction order, if they have violated the order of injunction. 7. Furthermore, in order to prove ownership and boundaries, it is for the petitioner to lead evidence in civil Court, including summoning of revenue officer etc. with survey report. 7. Furthermore, in order to prove ownership and boundaries, it is for the petitioner to lead evidence in civil Court, including summoning of revenue officer etc. with survey report. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be used for collecting of evidence for the civil suit pending between the parties. 8. The writ petition, being totally misconceived, is nothing but misuse of process of Court, therefore, it is not maintainable as framed. 9. No merits. Dismissed. No costs.