A.ALAGU Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the official respondents to have a joint survey, more particularly, by the respondents 4 and 5 under the supervision of the third respondent with police protection at existing 6 feet lane on the southern side of T.S.Nos.93, 95, 96 and northern side of T.S.Nos.86, 92 and 97 of Karai Iruppu, Madurai Road, Thatchanallur, Tirunelveli, based on the petitioner's representation dated 26.11.2018 and issue a copy of Survey Report to the petitioner, according to law.

(2.) The petitioner submits that he is the owner of house property situated at T.S.No.92, Ward No.3/Block No.3 of Karai Iruppu, Madurai Road, Tirunelveli Town. The said property originally belonged to his ancestors and thereafter, it was partitioned between the brothers. Thereafter, the petitioner got the above said property from one Murugesan, vide registered Sale Deed No.2879/2004, dated 24.11.2004.

(3.) The petitioner further submits that Natham Survey Nos.23/62, 66 and 71 is situated on the southern side of Sub-division Nos.23/68, 69 and 70. Between the above said Natham survey numbers, there is a lane of 6 feet, running east to west. The 9th respondent is occupying the said pathway and is not allowing the petitioner to use the same. Hence, the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.134 of 2014 for declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction before the I Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli. The said suit was dismissed as not pressed on 13.02.2017. In the meantime, the third respondent Tahsildar has sent a letter in Na.Ka.T1/1289/17, dated 24.04.2018, admitting that there is a 6 feet lane and there is a mistake between Natham Survey Sketch and Town Survey Sketch. Due to objection of encroachers and the land owners, it was not possible for the authority to survey the lands to rectify the defects. Hence, the petitioner has sent a representation to the first respondent on 21.05.2018 and received a reply from the second respondent on 20.07.2018. The reply given by the second respondent is similar to the reply given by the third respondent.