Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2, to survey the land of the petitioner and effect mutation in the revenue records in favour of the petitioner with respect to the land bearing Survey No.208 Pazhanthandalam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kanchipuram District. 2. In support of this writ petition, the petitioner has placed on record a copy of the application which is addressed to the first Respondent. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in spite of receipt of application the first respondent has not taken any steps to proceed with the matter. 4. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to survey the land of the petitioner and effect mutation in the revenue records in favour of the petitioner in respect of the land bearing Survey No.208 Pazhanthandalam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kanchipuram District. 5. The writ petition is totally misconceived. Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')reads as under:- "10. Power of survey officer to determine and record a disputed boundary:- (1) Where a boundary is disputed, the survey officer, after making such inquiry as he considers necessary, shall determine the boundary and record it in accordance with his decision. The survey officer shall record in writing the reasons for his decision. (2) Notice to parties to the dispute and to registered holders of lands affected:- Notice of every decision for the survey officer under Section 10(1) shall be given in the prescribed manner to the parties to the dispute and other registered holders of the lands the boundaries of which may be affected by the decision." 6. A reading of Section 10 of the Act, shows that it is the survey officer who is empowered to exercise Quasi Judicial power to carry out the survey of the land and demarcate the boundaries, in case there is dispute between the parties with regard to the boundaries. 7. Neither the first Respondent nor the second Respondent has jurisdiction to survey the land or demarcate the land, in view of the fact that the demarcation of land is regulated by a statute which prescribes the procedure to exercise the jurisdiction. 8. 7. Neither the first Respondent nor the second Respondent has jurisdiction to survey the land or demarcate the land, in view of the fact that the demarcation of land is regulated by a statute which prescribes the procedure to exercise the jurisdiction. 8. The petitioner therefore, can move appropriate application under Section 10 of the Act, for demarcation of his land, as no direction on the representation filed by the petitioner can be issued, in view of specific provisions under the Act. 9. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. However, this order shall not debar the petitioner to move appropriate application under Section 10 of the Act, for demarcation of his land in accordance with law.