WP No. 27535 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 6 SIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY WP No. 27535 of 2026 Shanmugapriya D/o.P.Chidhambaram, 2/453, Mookkareddipatti, Pappireddiaptti Taluk, Dharmapuri District. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Revenue Tahsildar Pappireddipatti taluk, Dharmapuri District. 2. The Firka Surveyor Taluk office, Pappireddipatti, Dharmapuri District. 3. The Inspector of Police Pappireddipatti Police Station, Dharmapuri District. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, Calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 28.05.2026 passed by the 2nd respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct survey and fix boundaries for my property measuring 2.95 acres (1.19.50 hec) in new SF No.8/2D1, Mookkareddipatti village, Pappireddipatti Taluk, Dharmapuri District, with police aid from the 3rd respondent by considering the petitioners online application No.2026/ 0123/ 05/ 000422 dated 24.01.2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 27535 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 6 For Petitioner(s): Ms.M.Adhishree For Respondent(s): Mr.C.Prabakaran, Govt. counsel, R1 & 2 Mr.Durai Gunasekaran, Govt. counsel for R3 Order This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 28.05.2026 passed by the 2nd respondent. 2. Mr.C.Prabakaran, learned Government counsel, takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 & 2 and Mr.Durai Gunasekaran, learned Government counsel, takes notice on behalf of the 3rd respondent. 3. By consent of the parties, the main petition is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission itself. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, an online application dated 24.01.2026 was filed by the petitioner to conduct survey and demarcation at the subject property. However, the said application was rejected by the 2nd respondent vide impugned order dated 28.05.2026, without assigning any proper reason, which is not proper. Hence, this petition. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 27535 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 6 5. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that in this case, the neighbour of the petitioner had already filed a suit, wherein an Advocate Commissioner was appointed for measuring the subject property, during which, the petitioner's property was also measured. Hence, the respondent had rejected the application filed by the petitioner. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and also perused the entire materials available on record. 7. In the case on hand, the application filed by the petitioner, for conducting survey at the subject property, was rejected by the respondents vide the impugned order dated 28.05.2026. A perusal of the said impugned order would show that it is a non-speaking order, which was passed without assigning any proper reason. In such case, no doubt that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 8. According to the respondents, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed, vide the order passed in the suit filed by the adjacent land owner, for measuring the subject property, during which, the petitioner's property was also measured. However, today, it was submitted by the petitioner that the survey was conducted only at the neighbour's property but not with regard to the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 27535 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 6 petitioner's property. Further, the petitioner made an application only for measuring the subject property and fixing boundary stones therein. He had also paid the cost for conducting survey at the subject land while filing the said application. When such being the case, it is not proper for the respondent to reject the petitioner's application by citing the aforesaid reason. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this ground also. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 28.05.2026 passed by the 2nd respondent is set aside. The 2nd respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's application and conduct survey at the subject land, after issuing notice to all the concerned parties, including the adjacent land owners, within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. It is made clear that this order is passed only for the purpose of issuing a direction to the official respondents for conducting survey at the subject land. If there is any dispute with regard to the title/possession over the said property, the same has to be decided only by way of filing a suit before an appropriate Civil Court. 11. If any police protection is required at the time of conducting survey, the revenue officials are granted liberty to avail the same by approaching the 3rd https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 27535 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 6 respondent. In such case, the 3rd respondent shall provide all necessary protection to the revenue officials till the completion of survey at the subject land. 12. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No cost. 16-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No nsa To 1. The Revenue Tahsildar Pappireddipatti taluk, Dharmapuri District. 2. The Firka Surveyor Taluk office, Pappireddipatti, Dharmapuri District. 3. The Inspector of Police Pappireddipatti Police Station, Dharmapuri District. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 27535 of 2026 __________ Page6 of 6 KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J. nsa WP No. 27535 of 2026 16-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis